Alcuin Bramerton Twitter .. Alcuin Bramerton Medium
Alcuin Bramerton profile ..... Index of blog contents ..... Home .....#1ab
Picture: Russia and KSA. Medvedev, Putin and Al Saud (October 2017).
Picture: Government of Catalonia - Declaration - Tues 10th October 2017.
Picture: Catalonia (Spain). September / October 2017.
Picture: Catalonia (Spain). September / October 2017.
Picture: Catalonia (Spain). September / October 2017.
Catalonia is an autonomous region in the north-east of Spain with its own language (Catalan). It has a substantial Mediterranean coastline. Its capital is Barcelona. One of the three or four best Association Football clubs in the world, also called Barcelona, is based there.
The population of Catalonia is 7.45 million, which is about 16% of Spain's total. The region accounts for 19% of Spain's GDP. Its economy is worth € 215.6 billion a year.
On Sunday 1st October 2017, the Catalan people held a secessionist referendum in which 90% of those participating expressed their wish for Catalonia to secede from Spain and become a separate independent nation. The turnout for the referendum was 43%. Madrid-ordered police violence against those trying to vote in the referendum led to 770,000 votes being lost.
According to Spain's national constitutional court (based in Madrid), the Catalan government was not entitled to organise such a referendum. This being the case, the referendum vote was unlawful and the result would be ignored by Madrid. The European Commission & the governments of the EU states agreed and sided with the Spanish government.
Writing on the DiEM25 website, Thomas Seibert comments:
The attitude of the European Commission and its governments follows the calculation that politics must be reduced to the unconditional securing of one’s own power.
Madrid, Brussels, Paris and Berlin also agree among themselves that they will base this calculation primarily on the use of a paramilitarily-reinforced police force. With the violent attack on the mass protests against the Hamburg G20 summit, Berlin has once again set the line of march, a violence seconded by Paris when it made the French state of emergency permanent.
From the perspective of over 900 people who have been brutally injured by (Spanish Prime Minister) Rajoy's uniformed squad groups, the only legitimate judgement on the Spanish situation is summed up in the sentence "Spain is dead", deployed by the author Albert Sanchéz Piñol in his commentary on these events.
In view of the complicity of the EU and its governments with the police riots and the millionfold robbery of the right to the freedom of political choice and the right to free political expression, we add: “This EU is dead.”
It is not only the Spanish State, which once again has impressively confirmed its Francoist origins, that calls for our condemnation. And not only the complicity of the EU and its governments to the post-Francoist regime. What also deserves our condemnation in no small part is the subjective loyalty of the Spanish majority to its régime.
In this lies the essentially political problem of this crisis, as well as many another crisis, which therefore are the most difficult to solve: the problem of the voluntary servitude of the majority, and the problem of the violence used by these servants against those who no longer want to be servants.
The Catalan question for us is not a national question, nor a question of a nation state, but a question of democracy. It poses itself not only in every actually existing, but also in every possible democracy. It is the inevitable self-questioning of every democracy. It stands as long as democracy is constituted by the state, and it is set up as long as democracy is in a majority ratio. It articulates the right of the self-defence of minorities, and it defines this right as a right to separation and secession.
Thomas Seibert's full text is here (04.10.17).
On Tuesday 10th October 2017, nine days after the referendum was held, the President of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont Casamajó (55), addressed the Catalan parliament in Barcelona. The English translation of his delivered text follows:
Official Statement by the President on the political situation in Catalonia
Declaration of independence by the President of the Catalan Government
I stand here before Parliament to present to you the results of the referendum held on October 1 and to explain the political consequences derived from it. I am conscious, as I’m sure are many of you, that today I also stand before the people of Catalonia and before many others, who have focused their attention on what happens today in this chamber.
We are living in an exceptional time, of historical dimension. The consequences and effects run beyond our country and it’s evident that, far from being an internal and domestic affair, as we have often had to hear from those who neglected their responsibility by not wanting to know about what’s happening, Catalonia is a European issue.
Do not expect, from my speech, threats, blackmail nor insults. The current moment is serious enough for everyone to assume their corresponding responsibility and for the necessity to de-escalate tension and not to contribute to it, neither through word nor gesture.
On the other hand, I wish to address the people; those who came out on the 1st and the 3rd of October, those who went to the demonstration on Saturday to advocate for dialogue, and those who came out massively on Sunday in defence of the unity of Spain. And to those who haven’t come out in any of those gatherings. All of us, with all of our differences, with all our points of understanding and divergence, all form part of the same people, and we must continue to work together, whatever happens, because that is how the history of a people who want to build a future is made.
Obviously, we will never agree on everything. But we do understand, because we’ve already demonstrated it, that the way forward can be none other than through democracy and peace. That means respecting those who think differently, and finding a way to make possible collective aspirations, with the realisation that that requires a large dose of dialogue and empathy.
As you may well imagine, in these recent days and hours many have spoken with me, suggesting both what needs to be done and what needs not be done. All of those suggestions are valid, respectable and appropriate for a moment like this. In all cases where I could I appreciated receiving them, because in each one I’ve heard good reasons which are worth listening to. I have also asked the opinion of many people, which has helped me and enriched the analysis of this moment in time and the perspective for the future, and I want to give them my heartfelt thanks.
But what I’m presenting to you today is not a personal decision, nor is it the obsession of any one person: it’s the result of the 1st of October, of the will of the government which I preside over having maintained its commitment to call, organise and hold a referendum of self-determination, and naturally of the analysis of the following facts which we have shared at the core of Government. Today is the time to talk about the results in the Parliament and that’s what we’re going to do.
We are here because on the 1st of October Catalonia held a referendum of self-determination. It was done in conditions, which were, rather than difficult, extreme. It’s the first time in the history of European democracies that an election day was held in the midst of violent police attacks against voters who were queueing to post their vote. From 8 in the morning until the close of polling stations, the Police and Guardia Civil beat defenceless people and obliged the emergency services to attend to more than 800 people. We all saw it, as did the world, which was horrified as the images came through.
The objective was not only to confiscate ballot boxes and voting papers. The objective was to cause panic and make people, as they saw the images of indiscriminate police violence, stay at home and renounce their right to vote.
But those politically responsible for these ignominious acts shot themselves in the foot. 2, 286, 217 citizens overcame their fear, left their homes and voted. We don’t know how many were unsuccessful in doing so, but we do know that the polling stations which were closed down violently represented the votes of 770,000 more people.
More than two million two hundred thousand Catalans were able to vote because they overcame their fear, and because when they arrived at their polling station they found ballot boxes, envelopes, voting slips, constituted voting tables and an operative and reliable electoral list.
The operations and police searches of the previous weeks in seeking ballot boxes and voting slips did not prevent the referendum. Phone taps, following people, cyber-attacks, the closure of 140 websites, interference in correspondence, none of these things could stop the referendum.
I repeat: in spite of the efforts and resources dedicated to prevent it happening, when the citizens arrived at the polling stations, they found ballot boxes, envelopes, voting slips, constituted voting tables and an operative and reliable electoral list.
I wish, therefore, to recognise and appreciate all of the people who made possible this logistical and political success. To the volunteers who slept in the polling stations. To the citizens who kept the ballot boxes in their homes. To those who printed the voting slips. To the computer technicians who came up with and developed the universal electoral list. To the workers in the Government. To those who voted yes or no, and those who voted blank. To so many anonymous people who did their part to make it all possible. And above all, I send my best wishes and solidarity to all those injured and mistreated in the police operation. Those images will remain in our memories forever. We will never forget.
We must recognise and denounce that the actions of the state have caused tension and worry in Catalan society. As President of Catalonia, I’m very conscious that at this time there are many people who are worried, anxious and even scared about what is happening and what may come to pass. People of all ideas and political leanings.
Gratuitous violence and the decision of some companies to transfer their headquarters, in a decision, allow me to say, more related to their markets than to real effects in our economy (what does have real effect on our economy is the 16 billion Catalan euros which are obliged to leave each year), are facts which without doubt have clouded the picture.
To all those people who are afraid, I wish to send them a message of comprehension and empathy, and also of serenity and tranquillity: the Government of Catalonia will not deviate one millimetre from its commitment to social and economic progress, democracy, dialogue, tolerance, respect for difference and a willingness to negotiate. As President I will always act with responsibility and keeping in mind the seven and a half million citizens of the country.
I would like to explain where we are, and especially why we are where we are. Today as the world is watching us, and indeed, today as the world is listening to us, I think it’s worth going back and explaining ourselves.
Since the death of the military dictator Francisco Franco, Catalonia has contributed at least as much as anyone else to the consolidation of Spanish democracy. Catalonia has been not only the economic engine of Spain, but also a modernising and stabling influence. Catalonia believed that the Spanish Constitution of 1978 could be a good starting point to guarantee its self-government and its material progress. Catalonia was deeply involved in the process of returning the Spanish state to European and international institutions after 40 years of isolation.
The passing of the years, however, began to show that the new institutional structure which came out of the Transition, which Catalonia saw as a good starting point towards evolving to new heights of democracy and self-governance, was seen by the hegemonic élite of the state not as a point of departure, but in fact as a point of arrival. With the passing of the years, the system not only stopped evolving in the desired direction for the people of Catalonia, but began to devolve.
Consistent with this finding, in the year 2005, a large majority, 88% of this Parliament, I repeat an 88% majority in this Parliament, following the steps marked out by the Constitution, I repeat, following the steps marked out by the Constitution, approved a proposal for a new Statute of Autonomy, and sent it to the Spanish Congress of Deputies. The Catalan proposal unleashed an authentic campaign of Catalanophobia, tied to an irresponsible manner by those who wanted to govern Spain at any price.
The text which was finally submitted for referendum in 2006 was already very different from the initial proposal from the Catalan Parliament, but despite that was approved by the citizens who voted on it. Turnout was 47%, and the votes in favour of the Statute were 1,899,897. I’d like to point out that that’s 145,000 votes fewer than the yes vote for independence on the 1st of October.
The state, however, hadn’t had enough with the first reduction. In 2010, four years after the entry in law of the watered down Statute, a Constitutional Court made up of magistrates hand-picked by the two main Spanish political parties, emitted an disgraceful sentence which watered down the Statute for a second time, modifying the content which had been voted on by the people in a referendum.
It’s worth remembering this, and underlining it. Despite having followed all the procedures of the constitution, despite being backed by 88% of the Parliament of Catalonia, and despite popular approval in a referendum, the combined action by the Congress of Deputies and the Constitutional Court converted the Catalan proposal into an unrecognisable text. And it’s worth remembering and underlining also: this unrecognisable text, doubly edited and not voted upon by Catalans, this is the current law in force. This has been the result of Catalonia trying to modify its Juridical Statute by constitutional means: a humiliation.
But that’s not everything. Since the sentence of the Constitutional Court against the Statute voted upon by the people, the Spanish political system not only has not moved a finger to try to go back and repair this break, but rather it has activated an aggressive and systematic program of recentralisation.
From the point of view of self-government, the last seven years have been the worst of the last forty: continual degradation of competencies through a series of decrees, laws and sentences; inattention and lack of investment in the basic system of infrastructure in Catalonia, a key part of a country’s economic progress; and hurtful disrespect towards our language, culture and the way of life in our country.
Everything that I explain in these short lines has had a profound impact in Catalan society. It’s got to the point that during this period many Catalans, millions of Catalans, have come to the rational conclusion that the only way to guarantee survival, not only of self-government, but of our values as a society, is the foundation of Catalonia as a state. The results of the last elections to the Parliament of Catalonia are a testament to this.
Furthermore, something even more relevant has happened: in parallel with the formation of a pro-independence absolute majority in the Parliament, a broad consensus has been forged that the future of Catalonia, whatever it may be, had to be decided by the Catalan people, democratically and pacifically, through a referendum. In the most recent poll by an important newspaper in Madrid, not from here, from Madrid, 82% of Catalans expressed this idea.
With the objective of making possible this referendum, in the last few years the Catalan institutions and civil societies have generated many initiatives before the Spanish government and its institutions. It’s all documented: up to 18 times, and in all possible formats, opening a dialogue has been proposed to agree a referendum similar to the one held in Scotland on 18 September 2014. A referendum with the date and a question agreed between the two sides, in which both sides could campaign and present their arguments, and in which both sides commit to accepting and applying the result through a negotiation which protects their respective interests. If that has been possible in one of the oldest, most consolidated and exemplary democracies in the world, as the United Kingdom is, why could it not also be done in Spain?
The answer to all of those initiatives has been a radical and absolute no, combined with police and judicial persecution of Catalan authorities. Ex-President Artur Mas and ex-ministers Joana Ortega and Irene Rigau, as with the ex-minister of Presidency Francesc Homs, have been banned from holding office for having promoted a non-binding participative process without juridical effect on the 9 of November 2014. And not only banned from public office, but also fined in an arbitrary and abusive way: if they do not deposit more than 5 million euros to the Spanish Court of Accounts, all of their assets will be embargoed and their families may be affected.
Apart from them, the bureau of this Parliament and dozens of municipal elected officials have been charged for expressing support for the right to decide and permit debates on the referendum. Charges have been brought against the President of the Parliament and its bureau to prevent them permitting the debate to take place.
The last wave of repression against Catalan institutions has resulted in the detainment and arrest of 16 officials and public servants in the Government of Catalonia, who had to appear in court handcuffed and without being informed of the accusation against them.
The world needs to know too that the leaders of the entities which have led the biggest peaceful demonstrations in Europe’s history are charged with the crime of sedition, which carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. These are people responsible for having organised demonstrations which amazed the world for their civility and lack of incident.
This has been the answer of the Spanish State to Catalan demands, which have always been expressed in a peaceful way and through the majorities obtained at the polls. The people of Catalonia have demanded the freedom to be able to decide for years. It’s very simple. We have not found anyone to dialogue with in the past nor are we finding one in the present. There is no State institution that is open to talking about the claim of the majority of this Parliament and of Catalan society. The last hope we could have left was for the monarchy to exercise the arbitration and moderating role that the constitution attaches to it, but the last week's speech confirmed our worst assumptions.
I now turn to the citizens of the whole of the Spanish state who are following with concern what is happening in Catalonia. I want to convey a message of serenity and respect, a willingness to dialogue and of political accord, as has always been our desire and our priority. I am aware of the information that is conveyed to them by most media and the narrative that has been established. But I dare to ask them to make an effort, for the good of all; an effort to know and recognise what has led us here and the reasons that have driven us.
We are not delinquents, nor are we crazy, nor are we attempting a coup, nor just some bad people: we are normal people who ask to be able to vote and who have been willing to undertake all necessary dialogue to carry it out in an agreed manner.
We have nothing against Spain and the Spanish. Quite the opposite. We want to understand each other better, and that is the desire of the majority in Catalonia. Because today, for many years now, the relationship isn’t working and nothing has been done to reverse a situation that has become unsustainable. And a people can not be compelled, against its will, to accept a status quo that it did not vote for and does not want. The Constitution is a democratic framework, but it is equally true that there is democracy beyond the Constitution.
Ladies and gentlemen, with the results of the referendum on October 1st, Catalonia has earned the right to be an independent state, and has earned the right to be heard and respected.
I must recognise that today Catalonia is being listened to and respected beyond our frontiers. The yes to independence won an absolute majority in the elections, and two years later it has won a referendum under the attacks of batons. The ballot boxes, the only language we understand, say yes to independence. And this is the route I am committed to traveling.
As is known, the Referendum Law establishes that, two days after the official proclamation of the results, and in the case where the number of Yes votes is superior to the number of No votes, the Parliament (and I cite the wording of the law) “will hold an ordinary session to put into effect a formal declaration of the independence of Catalonia, its effects and agree the beginning of the constituent process”.
There’s a before and after the 1st of October, and we have achieved what we committed ourselves to at the beginning of this legislature.
Arriving at this historic moment, and as President of the Generalitat I take it upon myself to say, in presenting to you the results of the referendum before Parliament and our co-citizens, that the people have determined that Catalonia should become an independent state in the form of a republic.
That is what needs to be done today, responsibly and with respect.
In with the same solemnity, the Government and I myself propose that the Parliament suspends the effects of the declaration of independence so that in the coming weeks we may begin a dialogue without which it is impossible to arrive at an agreed solution.
We firmly believe that this moment needs not only a de-escalation of tension but also a clear and committed willingness to advance the claims of the people of Catalonia from the results of the 1st of October. We must keep these results in mind during the period of dialogue which we are willing to open.
It is well-known that since the referendum different mediation initiatives have been put in place, regarding dialogue and negotiation and at national, state and international level. Some of these are publicly known, while others are not known yet. All are serious attempts, and were difficult to imagine happening just a short time ago.
The cries for dialogue and for no violence have been heard from all corners of the globe; yesterday’s declaration by a group of eight Nobel Peace Prize winners; the declaration the group The Elders led by the ex-secretary general of the United Nations Kofi Annan and made up of people of great world relevance; the positions of Presidents and Prime Ministers of European countries, European political leaders…
There’s a prayer for dialogue which runs through Europe, because Europe already feels interrupted by the effects of what could happen with a bad resolution of this conflict. All of these voices deserve to be listened to. And all, without exception, have asked that we open a time to give dialogue with the Spanish state a chance.
That is also what needs to be done today, responsibly and with respect.
In finishing, I call on the responsibility of everyone. To the citizens of Catalonia, I ask that we continue to express ourselves as we have done up to now, with freedom and with respect for those who think differently. To companies and economic stakeholders, I ask that they continue to generate wealth and not fall into the temptation to use their power to influence the population. To the political parties, I ask that they contribute with their words and actions to lower the tension. I also ask this of the media. To the Spanish government, I ask that they listen, not to us if they don’t want, but to those who advocate for mediation and to the international community, and to the millions of citizens around Spain who ask that they renounce repression and imposition. To the European Union, I ask that they get deeply involved and hold up the fundamental values of the Union.
Today the Government of Catalonia makes a gesture of responsibility and generosity, and again reaches out its hand in dialogue. I’m convinced that, if in the coming days everyone acts with the same responsibility and fulfils their obligations, the conflict between Catalonia and the Spanish state can be resolved in a manner that is serene and with accord, respecting the will of the people. For us, this will not stop here. Because we want to be true to our long history, to all who suffered and made sacrifices, and because we want a future of dignity for our children, for all those people who want to make Catalonia their land of welcome and hope.
Thank you very much.
Carles Puigdemont Casamajó
President of the Catalan Government
Source: here (10.10.17) or here (10.10.17 - pdf 7pp).
Picture: In Japan & South Korea who is smuggling stolen GCA gold?
Picture: UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on Sirte (Libya) & the next Dubai.
Picture: Binyamin Netanyahu. Golan Heights, Syria. Penguins seen in distance.
Picture: Binyamin Netanyahu. Paris, France. Penguins approaching.
Picture: Raqqa 2017; Nineveh 2,500 years ago; Kurds = Medes?
Western Geopolitics: Is G7 covert governance still in the hands of a Satanic, war-mongering, Nazi-continuum élite?
In the summer of 2017, Benjamin Fulford, a Japan-based spokesman for the international White Dragon Society, gave two interviews about his work uncovering élite corruption in current geopolitics. Many of the issues he addressed are being ignored or suppressed by the Western mainstream media.
Q: What is your education and journalistic background, Benjamin?
Fulford: My educational background is varied. I went to grade school in Mexico and Canada and studied in Spanish and English. My high school was in French. When I was 17, I went to the Amazon and studied under a Shipibo shaman on the banks of the Ucuyali river in Northern Peru.
My university education was Sophia University in Tokyo and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. My degree is in Asian studies with a China area speciality. However, since I took about 10 years' worth of undergraduate courses, I think of myself as a generalist.
Q: You also speak multiple languages, yes?
Fulford: Yes. Native or near-native in English, Japanese, French and Spanish. Conversational ability in Mandarin and the various romance languages.
Q: Being with such a well known media company (Forbes), what caused you to leave your job?
Fulford: There were many reasons but mainly it had to do with censorship. When Citibank was kicked out of Japan because they were caught money laundering for crime gangs, Forbes would not run the story even though my sources were Finance Ministry officials speaking on the record.
The final straw was when they asked me to do a story about a computer virus software company. I went to the Philippines to visit their laboratories and while there I went to visit the creator of the “I love you” virus that caused billions of dollars worth of damage. He claimed the anti-virus company paid him to make the virus.
I thought I had a big scoop but my editors refused to run the story because they thought I was becoming “unreliable.” Then Mr. Nakagawa, the business manager in Japan told me the real reason the story was cancelled was because the head of the anti-virus company paid Steve Forbes $500,000 to kill my story. That was the last straw for me.
However, it was a very scary thing to give up that regular fat monthly paycheck and the prestigious name card that opened so many doors. I can understand why many corporate journalists put up with censorship and control just so they can keep up their lifestyles.
Q: You’ve stated that the Japanese royal family showed you evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and that this was sort of your big “wake up call.” Can you elaborate on that?
Fulford: I was planning to publish a book exposing the corruption in Japan. The day after I sent the first two chapters to my agent, I got a call from Kaoru Nakamaru, a cousin of Emperor Hirohito who told me: “I know a lot about the dark side of Japan but I understand nothing about the dark side of the West.” We met and she asked me not to publish the book because that is not what I really wanted to do in my heart. Then she gave me a 911 video.
My thought at the time was “this is one of those anti-semitic conspiracy videos I read about in the New York Times.” I was thus reluctant to even look at it. However, when I did, it really opened my eyes and set me on a path of intensive research into the historical truth of false flags over the ages.
Q: You wrote a book about 9/11, correct?
Fulford: Yes I did and it was a best seller in Japan. Here is the link.
Q: You’ve also been very vocal about Fukishima being an intentional crime against humanity . Can you please elaborate on that?
Fulford: First of all the Japanese authorities were warned in advance of March 11, 2011 by an Australian government agent going by the code name Richard Sorge (now Alexander Romanov) that a 500 kiloton nuclear weapon stolen from the Russian submarine Kursk in 2000 had been smuggled into Japan for the purpose of nuclear terror against that country. Sorge also told me and I wrote about it.
Sorge was a drug smuggler into Japan for over 20 years and went to the authorities when a nuclear weapon was sent together with his usual drug shipment.
The bomb was first taken to former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone’s property in Hinodecho in Western Tokyo. It was then taken to the North Korean citizens' association building.
Later, according to Takamasa Kawase of Japanese military intelligence, the bomb was taken aboard the deep sea drilling ship Chikyu. Local news reports confirm the Chikyu was drilling deep into the seabed at the exact epicenters of the Fukushima earthquake prior to March 11, 2011 (or 311 as they call it in Japan).
After the Tsunami and nuclear attack on Japan, a Christian Pastor by the name of Paolo Izumi was approached by a member of the Japanese self-defence forces who said he was part of a 15-member crew that dismantled the bomb into 5 smaller nuclear devices and that these were drilled into the seabed by the Chikyu prior to 311. He thought at the time that he was participating in earthquake research.
After the terrorist attack, his colleagues were all murdered so he sought shelter from his Pastor. The person is now being protected under the witness protection program and is willing to testify in public about what happened.
There is a lot more to this so please do a news search to see my previous articles on the subject.
Q: So this is some sort of global élite that have helped to orchestrate 9/11 and Fukushima?
Fulford: The forensic trail of evidence led to Peter Hanz Kolvenbach, the former head of the Jesuits and the P2 Freemason lodge in Italy. These people are aiming for a fascist world government under their control.
Q: You were the first journalist (to my knowledge) to publicly write about what is known as the global collateral accounts. Can you explain what these accounts are and some of their history, as well as their intended purpose?
Fulford: Again that would require a book on its own. The short version is that since Roman times the West sent gold and silver to Asia in exchange for silk, ceramics and spices. This meant that about 85% of the world’s precious metals ended up in Asia, mostly under the control of various Asian royal dynasties.
This gold was used to back up the Bretton Woods system. However, when the West broke its promises to have a Marshal plan for the whole world and only applied it to the G7 countries under their control, the gold was cut off.
The US thus ran out of gold in the early 1970s which led to the Nixon shock when the US dollar was taken off the gold standard and put on the oil standard.
The petrodollar standard is now being replaced once again with a gold standard, but the process is not complete and there is a continuing stand off between the West, who have the Euro, US Dollar and Yen printing presses and the Asians, who have the gold.
Q: In August of 2011, you wrote about a meeting that took place off the coast of Monaco between a man named Neil Keenan and 57 financial representatives from various countries around the world. What was that meeting about and why was it so important?
Fulford: Basically an alliance was formed with backing from US military white hats to try to take control of the global financial system away from the élite Western bloodline families I refer to as the Khazarian mafia.
Q: So essentially, there is a large international alliance that is opposing a one world order?
Fulford: They are not opposed to a world united by friendship and the rule of law. They are opposed to a world fascist dictatorship controlled by Satan-worshiping élite bloodlines.
The anti-Russian hysteria on the part of the Khazarians is due to the fact they were kicked out of Russia, and Russia is now undergoing a big Christian revival.
Q: What are some sources that you receive your intelligence from?
Fulford: My sources are many and varied but include people in the P2 Freemason lodge, the FSB, the NSA, the Gnostic Illuminati, the CIA, US military Intelligence, the various Japanese crime gangs, Asian secret societies, Japanese military intelligence, the North Koreans, etc.
I have been a reporter here for 30 years which means I have developed a comprehensive set of contacts.
Q: So there are many people within the intelligence community around the world who are working quietly and are also part of this international alliance seeking to end the corruptive power systems of our world?
Fulford: Yes, indeed.
Q: You’ve stated that you’ve had 5 attempts at your life. Clearly, “they” don’t like that you’re putting out such revealing information on a weekly basis.
Fulford: The five murder attempts include:
Being poisoned in Italy by Vincenzo Mazzara, a cavalier of the teutonic knights and a senior member of the P2 freemason lodge.
An attempt to shoot me by Japanese gangsters in Sakhalin, Russia.
Multiple attempts to murder me in Osaka by Japanese gangsters paid to do so by Rothschild agent Michael Greenberg.
An attempted attack with a heart attack inducing electronic device on a subway in Tokyo.
Being stabbed with a poison needle by Mutsuaki Okubo, a North Korean agent.
Q: Some people say that you’re disinformation because certain things have not come to pass that you’ve written about. However, many things have. Can you talk about some of those big events that have?
Fulford: When people accuse me of being a disinformation agent they are basically calling me a liar, which is slander.
What has happened is that my sources have told me certain things are going to happen and they do not always happen as my sources told me they would. In such cases, I was quoting my sources and they were wrong. For example, senior CIA sources kept insisting to me that Joe Biden would be President but it turned out to be Donald Trump.
However, some of my sources accurately predicted events like the Lehman Shock, the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, the Fukushima nuclear terror attack on Japan, etc.
Q: So essentially, good things are happening despite a lack of media attention on it?
Fulford: Good things are definitely happening and that is obvious for all to see. Only 6% of Americans trust the mainstream media which means they have killed themselves with their constant lies and cover ups.
Q: Any other messages you’d like to share with the world or anyone in particular?
Fulford: Yes, the process of creating and distributing money is the process of deciding what humanity does in the future. This process should be a transparently run public utility not a private monopoly in the hands of gangsters. We are fighting to free humanity from a horrific régime of Babylonian debt slavery and we are winning.
Source here (20.07.17).
Five weeks later, Benjamin Fulford took part in another Q&A.
Q: Were papers filed in The Hague authorizing the US military to intervene on behalf of its people against elements of its own government? Would an alt-news campaign encourage the US military?
Fulford: None of my sources have told me about papers filed in the Hague, but I can assert for sure the Trump régime is a de facto military junta and the US military has already taken action.
Q: Is it possible that the cabal used HAARP technology to create the Houston storm to bring up the oil price to support their banks?
Fulford: Yes it is possible. When studying events it is always important to ask Qui bono? (Who benefits?)
Q: Is an increase of troops in Afghanistan actually going to occur because these troops will destroy the poppy fields/drugs traffic?
Fulford: No, the troops are there to protect the poppy fields because they generate about $1.6 trillion a year of revenue.
Q: What is keeping George Soros from being arrested?
Fulford: George Soros has not been arrested because he has been killed. The cabalists are trying to maintain the illusion he is alive because they need a front man like him to act as a cover for the real actors like the Rothschilds.
Q: Why aren’t Antifa and BLM identified as terrorist organizations?
Fulford: They have been and they are being rounded up.
Q: When will China and Russia assert their authority for pricing physical precious metals?
Fulford: It is an ongoing process. The real debate going on under the surface is about when, how, or if off-ledger gold is to be monetised. It is a complex issue.
Q: Are mass arrests being deterred by terrorist nuclear/biological/other threats, and is this temporary?
Fulford: There have been a lot of arrests but yes, some powerful actors are still around because they have armies protecting them and have access to weapons of mass destruction.
Q: Are the CIA and FBI now under Trump’s control or do they work for the Cabal?
Fulford: They are split into both factions but the Trump faction is now prevailing.
Q: Is there any imminent significant action, or is all the impetus on a gradual (e.g. two year) transition?
Fulford: There is a gradual transition underway. The main problem is that if you just collapse the system into a hard landing without a viable replacement ready, there will be chaos, bloodshed, and suffering on a massive scale.
Q: What about the Antifa armed revolt training we are hearing about?
Fulford: Antifa activists are being rounded up.
Q: What do you currently see as the most hopeful course of action? Would you consider giving interviews in alt media?
Fulford: The White Dragon Society is pushing for, and participating in, top level negotiations to revamp and, at times replace, the international architecture that was put in place after World War 2. And yes, I am happy to give interviews.
Source here (29.08.17).
AB note: The White Dragon Society grew out of the Black Dragon Society in May 2010. More about the White Dragon Society can be found here, here, here and here. And there is more about the Global Collateral Accounts here and here (pdf 120pp).
Picture: What is the Western World's end-time conflict really all about?
Picture: Abuse heard in Roman Catholic confessions?
Picture: Why do we have wars, Mummy?
Picture: America loses at Global Chess again. US and Russia.
Since the Nixon gold shock of 1971, the United States of America (US Inc / USA Inc) has allowed itself to become the most immature, short-sighted and self-injurious democracy in the world. Nowhere is this more evident than in Washington's foreign policy dealings with Russia, South America, the Middle East, the Korean peninsula and China.
With regard to dealings with Russia, the American political class is now corrupt, deskilled and blustering. Fortunately, the top military people in both countries continue to get along well, despite media and political comment to the contrary.
It is a de facto feature of American corporate governance (Washington DC) that the mainstream media managers are senior in rank to the elected politicians. And there are thirty-nine levels of security clearance above the level of the US President. During the Bush, Clinton and Obama presidencies, this fact helped to prevent several attempts to start World War Three.
Also influential in the global peace-keeping effort has been the very evident fact that the Russians have kept years ahead of the Americans in terms of scalar and electronic nuke suppression capabilities. The term cosmospheres is sometimes mentioned in this context. Russia is thought to have high-status spiritual and (or) benevolent off-planet assistance with this technology.
On the issue of the recent attempts by the American media and political class to demonise Russia for propaganda and distraction purposes, Dr Paul Craig Roberts has offered some pertinent comments. On Friday 28th July 2017 he wrote:
The Congress of the United States by almost unanimous votes in both House and Senate has made it clear that Congress had rather destroy the President of the United States and to increase the risk of nuclear war than to avoid conflict with Russia by normalizing relations.
The vote on the new sanctions makes it pointless for President Trump to veto the bill, because it passed both houses by far more than the two-thirds vote required to over-ride the president’s veto. The only thing Trump can achieve with a veto is to prove the false charge that he is in league with Vladimir Putin
The new sanctions bill forecloses the possibility of reducing the rising tensions between the two major nuclear powers. It also shows that whatever interest Congress has, if any, in reducing the threat of war and in avoiding a break with Europe over the sanctions, Congress has a much greater interest in continuing to collect campaign contributions from the powerful and rich military/security complex and in playing to the growing hatred of Russia that is encouraged by the US media.
This reckless and irresponsible action by the US Congress makes completely clear that Washington has intentionally chosen conflict with Russia as the main element of US foreign policy. Perhaps now the Russian government will abandon its cherished illusion that an accommodition with Washington can be reached.
As I have written on many occasions, the only way Russia can achieve accommodation with Washington is to surrender and accept American hegemony. Any further resistance of the Russian government to this obvious fact would indicate dangerous delusion on the part of the Russian leadership.
The fig leaf Congress chose for its violation of diplomatic protocols and international law is the disproven allegation of Russian interference in behalf of Trump in the US presidential election.
An organisation of former US intelligence officers recently announced that forensic investigation has been made of the alleged Russian computer hacking, and the conclusion is that there was no hack; there was an internal leak, and the leak was copied on to a device and Russian “fingerprints” were added. There is no forensic evidence whatsoever that shows any indication of Russian hacking.
It is all made up, and everyone alleging Russian hacking knows it. There is no difference between the allegation of Russian hacking and Hitler’s allegation in 1939 that “last night Polish forces crossed our frontier,” Hitler’s fig leaf for his invasion of Poland.
That Congress uses a blatantly transparent lie to justify its violation of international law and intentionally worsens US relations with both Russia and the EU proves how determined Washington is to intensify conflict with Russia. Expect more false allegations, more demonization, more threats.
War is in the cards.
Source here (28.07.17).
Three days later, on Monday 31st July 2017, Paul Craig Roberts returned to the subject of war:
Some historians believe that the cause of WW2 was UK prime minister Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler’s recovery of German territory given to other countries via the Versailles Treaty in contravention of US President Woodrow Wilson’s promise to Germany that there would be no reparations and no loss of territory if Germany agreed to an armistice ending WW1.
I do not agree. The facts seem clear. The cause of WW2 was the gratuitous and unenforceable guarantee to the Polish military government given by Chamberlain that if Poland refused to hand German lands and populations back to Germany, Great Britain would be there to support Poland.
When Germany and the Soviet Union made the deal to split Poland between them and attacked, Britain due to its stupid “guarantee” declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. As France was aligned by treaty with Britain, France, too, had to declare war.
Because of the reign of propaganda in the West, hardly anyone knows this, but WW2 was started by the British and French declaration of war on Germany. Yet, it was the surviving members of the German régime who were put on trial by the US, UK, France, and the Soviet Union in Nuremberg for initiating aggressive war.
Nevertheless, as the general opinion is that Chamberlain encouraged Hitler to ever more aggressive actions by the British failure to respond, why has no one pointed out that the Russian government’s lack of response to Washington’s aggressive actions toward Russia encourages Washington to become more aggressive. This also is leading to war.
The Russian government, like Chamberlain’s, has not responded to provocations far more dangerous than Chamberlain faced, because, like Chamberlain, the Russian government prefers peace to war.
The question is whether the Russian government is avoiding or encouraging war by its non-response to illegal sanctions and propagandistic accusations and demonizations. Russia has even allowed Washington to put ABM bases on its borders with Poland and Romania. This is like the US permitting Russia to put missile bases in Cuba.
Russia is disadvantaged because, unlike the United States, Russia is an open society, not a police state like the US where dissent is controlled and suppressed.
The Russian government is handicapped by its decision to permit foreign ownership of some of its media. It is disadvantaged by its decision to accept hundreds of American and European financed NGOs that organize protests and constantly level false charges at the Russian government. The Russian government permits this because it mistakenly believes Washington and its vassals will see Russia as a tolerant democracy and welcome it into the Western Family of Nations.
Russia is also disadvantaged by its educated upper class, professors and businessmen who are Western oriented. The professors want to be invited to conferences at Harvard University. The businessmen want to be integrated into the Western business community.
These people are known as “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They believe Russia’s future depends on acceptance by the West and are willing to sell out Russia in order to gain this acceptance. Even some of Russian youth think everything is great in America where the streets are paved with gold, and some of the Russian media take their cue from the Western presstitutes.
It is a difficult situation for the Russian government. The Russians mistakenly believed that the demise of the Soviet Union made us all friends. It seems only Gorbachev understands that the Soviet collapse removed all constraint on Washington’s hegemonic behavior.
Few in Russia seem to understand that the enormous budget and power of the US military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower, warned in 1961, needs an enemy for its justification, and that the Soviet collapse had removed the enemy. The very minute that Russia stood up for its national interest, Washington filled the desperately needed category of “The Enemy” with Putin’s Russia.
The Russian government and upper class have been extremely slow in realizing this. Indeed, only a few are beginning to see the light.
Despite the writing on the wall, Russia’s new UN envoy, Vasily Nabenzya declared on July 29 that Russia has no alternative to “building bridges under any circumstances. We will cooperate. Americans cannot go without us, and us without them. This is an objective reality.”
This is a statement of Russian surrender.
Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov also refuses to read the writing on the wall. He thinks Washington and Moscow must “break the vicious circle of retaliation and start anew.”
On July 30 Russian President Putin finally responded to the Obama regime’s orchestrated expulsion of Russian diplomats from Washington last Christmas and illegal seizure of Russian government properties in the Washington area by evicting 750 “American diplomats,” in reality agents working to undermine the Russian government. Putin could just as well have arrested them. It only took 7 months for Russia to respond to Washington’s hostile actions against Russian diplomats.
Sometimes the Russian government shows some awareness that it is permanently designated as Washington’s Number One Enemy. Putin explained the belated expulsion of US “diplomats” as follows: “We’ve been waiting for quite a long time that maybe something would change for the better, we had hopes that the situation would change. But it looks like, it’s not going to change in the near future .… I decided that it is time for us to show that we will not leave anything unanswered.”
After saying this, Putin took it all back: “The main thing is, that we have a multi-faceted cooperation in many fields. Of course, Moscow has a lot to say and there is a number of spheres of cooperation that we could potentially cut and it would be sensitive for the US side. But I think we shouldn’t do it. It would harm development of international relations. I hope it won’t get to that point. As of today, I’m against it.”
A more realistic response than President Putin’s comes from Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and program director of Putin’s Valdai Discussion Club. Suslov understands that the new illegal sanctions against Russia, in addition to their advantage for US energy corporations, are an act of aggression toward Russia, the purpose of which is to make impossible the improvement of bilateral relations between the US and Russia.
“Today,” Suslov said, “it is already clear that the US is our enemy, and will remain our enemy for a long time. Russia needs to adjust its state arms program, reflecting the inevitable military-political confrontation with the US. There must be investments in stratgic deterrence, in maintaining the system of guaranteed mutual destruction.”
Suslov adds: “Perhaps, it is worthwhile to turn off cooperation with the United States on those issues which are necessary first of all for the US itself. For example, the US depends on Russia in the field of space cooperation. Perhaps there is a need to make adjustments and give up part of the programs of cooperation. It is worthwhile to think about increasing military cooperation between Russia on the American continent - I mean primarily to build up cooperation with Venezuela,” Suslov said.
In Washington, anyone who departed as far as Suslov has from the delusions that hinder Russian decision-making would be fired. It will be interesting to see if Suslov has introduced more reality than is acceptable into Russian awareness of the threat that Russia faces from Washington.
Is Russia a country so desperate to be part of the West that it is ruled by delusions and illusions? If so, war is a certainty.
Source here (31.07.17).
Paul Craig Roberts was President Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. Reagan thought very well of him as the text of this letter indicates.
Picture: UK. Everyone is AntiSemitic until further notice.
Picture: Jeremy Corbyn (UK). We must reclaim our public spaces.
Picture: End-time geopolitics? Kandinsky - Contrasting Sounds.
Picture: What matters in Jane Austen?
Picture: Should fake white middle-class feminists be banned?
Picture: Which rogue faction is supplying North Korea with missiles and nukes?
Picture: USA inc - Donald Trump. US Inc - Henry Kissinger.
Picture: Vladimir Putin & Donald Trump. G20 Hamburg, July 2017.
On Saturday 8th July 2017, following the conclusion of a G20 summit meeting in Hamburg (Germany), the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, took questions from the media.
Q: Mr President, both experts and ordinary people, some of whom are rampaging near this building now, are known to have different opinions on the usefulness of G20 summits. At this summit, for example, there was more talk about your meeting with Mr Trump. Which of the issues discussed by the G20 is most relevant for Russia?
Putin: G20 is primarily an economic forum, even though many political and similar issues emerge. Nevertheless, the main issue is the development of the global economy, and this is what received the greatest attention.
We agreed on determining global economy sustainability principles, and this is vitally important for working along the same standards.
Then we continued with the issue which in fact had been launched in St Petersburg: money laundering and everything connected with tax havens and tax evasion. It is a crucial matter with practical implications.
Next, no less important and also connected with the economy, a related but very important issue – the fight against terror, tracking money flows to prevent the funding of terrorism.
Finally, a very big and very sensitive issue is climate change. I think in this respect the Federal Republic of Germany chairing the G20 has managed to reach the best compromise in a difficult situation the chairing nation has found itself in, namely due to the US quitting the Paris Climate Agreement.
An agreement was reached, a compromise, when all the countries have recorded that the United States pulled out of the agreement but they are ready to continue cooperating in certain areas and with certain countries on addressing climate change challenges. I think this is a positive result in itself, which can be credited to Chancellor Merkel.
There are other issues we looked into. For example, digital economy. Here we proposed adopting common rules in the area of digital economy, defining cyber security and designing a comprehensive system of behaviour rules in this sphere.
We said today – the President of the South African Republic spoke very convincingly about it; in fact, this issue was touched upon in practically everyone’s speech and in some way it is reflected in the final documents – that we must be ready for the release of the labour force, we must make joint efforts, we must figure out what should be done with the workers who have lost their jobs, how to arrange retraining, what the deadlines are and what rules should be put in place.
Among other things, I drew attention to the fact that trade unions will have to be engaged because they will protect not only the workers but also the self-employed individuals operating in the digital economy, and the number of such jobs is increasing. This is connected in one way or another with women’s rights and education for girls. This is being discussed at many forums but we talked about it today in the context of digital economy.
Q: Mr President, many speakers, ministers from different countries responsible for the economy, said that 2017 could become the year of global economic growth. How feasible is that and will this growth be seen in Russia in view of the current unfavourable trends – sanctions, restrictions and other factors?
Putin: We have not seen any unfavourable trends so far, or they have almost disappeared at any rate. Certain factors are having a negative impact on economic development, including in the global economy, the economy in the Euro zone and in Russia, those same illegitimate restrictions you have mentioned.
We call for lifting any restrictions, for free trade, for working within the World Trade Organisation, in line the WTO rules. By the way, one of the topics discussed here was free trade and countering protectionism. This is also one of the crucial areas that should be mentioned.
On the whole, there is some progress. However, the initial optimistic growth forecasts have been downgraded. Nevertheless, there is growth, and it is apparent, including in Russia.
I said recently and repeated it here that Russian economic growth is tangible, the Russian economy, and we can say this with certainty, has recovered from the recession. We have been growing for the third quarter in a row, and soon it will be the fourth quarter in a row. Growth exceeded 3 percent in May: it was 3.1 percent. I think we will have an average of 2 percent in 2017. This is also a significant contribution to the global economic growth.
Let me remind you that we also have low unemployment of 5.2 percent, our reserves are growing, including the reserves of the Central Bank and the Government. The Central Bank reserves have already reached $412 billion. The federal budget revenues grew by 40 percent, and all this is happening against the background of fairly low inflation of 4.4 percent. All this taken together certainly gives us optimism; however, one cannot say with certainty that this is a long-term trend. We must take care to sustain this growth trend. I have every reason to believe that we will manage to do it.
Q: Mr President, your meeting with President Trump was the focus of everyone's attention at the summit. How do you access the results of this meeting? It is no secret that US President had voiced a rather tough rhetoric in Poland, and there had even been unfriendly statements from US media in the run-up to the summit. Did Mr Trump ask you directly about Russia's interference in the US [presidential] election? Did you like him personally? Do you think you will get along?
Putin: The US President asked me this question directly, and we discussed it. And this was not a single question, there were many, and he gave much attention to this issue. Russia's stance is well-known and I reiterated it. There is no reason to believe that Russia interfered in the US election process.
But what is important is that we have agreed that there should not be any uncertainty in this sphere, especially in the future. By the way, I mentioned at the latest summit session that this directly concerns cyberspace, web resources and so on.
The US President and I have agreed to establish a working group and make joint efforts to monitor security in the cyberspace, ensure full compliance with international laws in this area, and to prevent interference in countries' internal affairs. Primarily this concerns Russia and the United States. We believe that if we succeed in organising this work – and I have no doubt that we will – there will be no more speculation over this matter.
As regards personal relations, I believe that they have been established. This is how I see it: Mr Trump's television image is very different from the real person; he is a very down to earth and direct person, and he has an absolutely adequate attitude towards the person he is talking with; he analyses things pretty fast and answers the questions he is asked or new ones that arise in the course of the discussion. So I think that if we build our relations in the vein of our yesterday's meeting, there are good reasons to believe that we will be able to revive, at least partially, the level of interaction that we need.
Q: Could you please say if President Trump has accepted your denial of Russia’s involvement, Russia’s interference in the US election?
Putin: I repeat, he asked many question on this matter. I answered all of his questions as far as I could. I think he took note and agreed. But it would be better if you asked him about what he thinks about it.
Q: I would like to ask what you think of Alexei Navalny and his activities. And why you do not say his name and surname when you answer questions about him.
Putin: I think we can engage in dialogue, especially at the level of the President or the Government, with the people who propose a constructive agenda, even if they voice criticism. But if the point is to attract publicity, this does not encourage dialogue.
Q: Is there any hope that Donbass (East Ukraine) will come out of the ordeal gripping it right now? Can the discussion of the issue launched with the US President play its rôle? Do the interests of Russia and the United States still diverge in Ukraine, or maybe even oppose each other in some matters?
Putin: The interests of Russia and Ukraine, the interests of the Russian and Ukraine people – and I am fully and profoundly confident of this – coincide. Our interests fully coincide. The only thing that does not coincide is the interests of the current Ukrainian authorities and some of Ukraine's political circles.
If we are to be objective, of course, both Ukraine and Russia are interested in cooperating with each other, joining their competitive advantages and developing their economies just because we have inherited much from the Soviet era – I am speaking about cooperation, the unified infrastructure and the energy industry, transport, and so on.
But regrettably, today our Ukrainian colleagues believe this can be neglected. They have only one ”product“ left – Russophobia, and they are selling it successfully. Another thing they are selling is the policy of dividing Russia and Ukraine and pulling the two peoples and two nations apart. Some in the West like this; they believe that Russia and Ukraine must not be allowed to get closer in any areas. That is why the current Ukrainian authorities are making active and successful efforts to sell this ”product.“
But I think this will eventually come to an end. Russia, at any rate, wants for this situation to be over as soon as possible.
As regards the United States' involvement in settling the situation in Ukraine, President Trump and I have talked about this and we agreed – and actually, this has already been done – that a special representative of the administration would be appointed to handle this issue on a permanent basis and to be in constant contact both with Russia and Ukraine, with all the parties interested in settling this conflict.
Q: Mr President, I have a question about the Middle East, which is seething at the moment: Syria, Qatar and other countries. How do you assess the prospects for the Syrian settlement after the recent meeting in Astana? Has the stance of the new US Administration on this issue changed or become more constructive, especially in view of yesterday’s agreements? And also about Qatar, if I may. How do you assess the situation? Was it discussed at the G20 Summit? And one more question, if I may…
Putin: I will have to make a full report to you. (Laughter)
Q: On the terrorism issue: as far as I know, agreeing on the Statement on Countering Terrorism was a difficult process. If it is not a secret, what were the major contradictions?
Putin: To be honest, I am not aware of the difficulties, you had better ask the Sherpa. In my view, there were no basic objections from anyone. Maybe some of the wording. But, to be honest, I am not aware of that. I know that the text was agreed on. At any rate, at the level of delegation heads, heads of state, there were no problems or tensions. Everyone admits that this is a common threat and everyone states their readiness to fight this threat.
As for Qatar, the problem was not discussed. It is a fairly burning regional issue, and can impact certain processes, by the way, including in the economy, in the energy area and in terms of security in the region, but I did not discuss this issue with anybody during the summit.
We discussed Syria with almost all of my interlocutors. As for whether the US stance has changed or not – I would say it has become more pragmatic. It does not seem to have changed in general, but there is an understanding now that by combining efforts, we can achieve a lot. Yesterday's deal on the southern de-escalation zone is clearly the result of this change.
You know, others may react as they like, but I can tell you, this is one of the breakthroughs we have made in our work with President Trump. This is a real result of cooperation, including with the United States. Jordan has joined in the effort, and so have several other countries in the region. We have held consultations with Israel and will continue them in the near future. Still, this is a very good result, a breakthrough of a kind.
We have discussed the de-escalation zone issue very thoroughly with the President of Turkey today. This does not entirely depend on us, of course, as much has to do with the controversy between the countries in the region. Everyone has their own concerns, everyone has their own preferences, their own interests, I mean legitimate interests, so this is the way we must treat these – as their legitimate interests; we need to look for compromises.
You know, sometimes we find them. In any case, the fact that active military operations have ceased, the fact that we are now discussing de-escalation zones is a huge step forward.
Now we need to agree on the exact boundaries of these zones, and how security will be ensured there. This is a painstaking, even tedious effort, and it is extremely important and responsible work. Based on the recent positive experience, relying on the good will of Iran, Turkey, and of course, the Syrian Government and President al-Assad, we can take further steps.
The most important thing is – we have actually reaffirmed this, also in the documents establishing this zone in the south on the border with Jordan, and the area that borders on the Golan Heights – the most important thing is to ensure Syria’s territorial integrity, eventually, so that these de-escalation zones become the prototype of regions that could cooperate with each other and with the official Damascus. If we manage to do this, we will lay the groundwork, create the prerequisites for resolving the entire Syrian problem by political means.
Q: These days we say “we have elections in Germany” in September. Is Russia planning to interfere in them? Did you notify Angela Merkel about how we are going to do it? Maybe you will give me a hunch as well? (Laughter in the audience.)
Putin: You are asking rather provocative questions. But I told you that we had not interfered in the United States either. Why should we make trouble here as well? We have very good relations with the Federal Republic. It is our largest trade and economic partner in Europe country-wise; one of our leading trade partners in the world. We have large joint projects on the agenda that we support, for example, Nord Stream 2.
There are a lot of tales being told about it, arguments and even resistance but it is absolutely evident that it is in the interests of the European economy and in the interests of the German economy, which wants to abandon nuclear power.
Why would we do it? Interfering in domestic political processes is the last thing we would wish to do.
If you look at the press, the German press or the European press in general, the French press, it is they who keep on interfering in our domestic affairs. But we are not concerned about it because we feel confident.
Q: You said we should ask President Trump about what had happened.
Putin: No, I did not. You should ask him about how he sees it, what he thinks about my answers. As to what happened – nothing happened; we did not interfere.
Q: Could you just share what President Trump said during your meeting when you told him that Russia had not interfered in the political process?
Putin: He started asking probing questions, he was really interested in some details. I gave him fairly detailed answers as much as I could. I told him about my dialogues with the previous administration, including with President Obama. But I do not feel that I have the right to give details of my conversations, say, with President Obama; it is not an accepted practice at this level. I think it would not be quite appropriate of me to give details of our conversation with President Trump. He asked me and I answered him. He asked probing questions, and I offered explanations. I think he was satisfied with those answers.
Q: Going back to the issue of boosting economic growth, to the measures that could be taken, the Government has already drafted a plan, and as far as we know, you have read it but for some reason the plan is classified. We know some parts of it from what you said about them.
Putin: Let me explain. As you must know, we have several groups working on this issue: a group headed by Mr Titov with the involvement of the business community, and a group headed by Mr Kudrin, who has gathered a large number of respected experts. The Government is also working. But we should make a plan that will be acceptable, optimal for the next steps to be taken in the economy starting in 2018. And we must review all the proposals, assess them and in the end, make the final decision.
It may not be one of the proposals submitted; it may be something based on all three proposals. But work is currently underway, and we do not talk about it in advance.
But the Government has certainly done a great deal in this area, and we will rely largely on the Government’s proposals. We cannot ignore the results of Mr Kudrin’s work, and Mr Titov also has some sensible suggestions. This is why we are working at present to decide what the final variant will be out of the proposals for the development of the Russian economy from 2018 onward.
That is all. There are no secrets. What is the point? The point is that it is wrong to announce what has not been adopted yet. We could just send the wrong signals to the economy, and that is it. It all comes down to that.
Q: I have learned that you have been briefed on the [limo] car of the Cortege project, which is to be used at the 2018 presidential inauguration.
Putin: You seem to know this better than me: this is the first time I have heard about it.
Q: Have you thought of going for a drive in this car at the official event, that is, at the inauguration?
Putin: No, I have not, because the car is not ready yet. You can go for a drive in it yourself, I will see how it goes, and later we can test it out together.
Q: You have spoken about the meeting with Mr Erdoğan. Could you please elaborate – when you touched upon the issue of the first zone, the northern one, did you discuss the issue of the Kurds and particularly the territory of Afrin, where representatives of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides are present? The Turkish media are already preparing the ground for the Turkish army's intervention to this area. Also, did you discuss the future of [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad with Mr Trump and Mr Erdoğan? For instance, Mr Tillerson said yesterday that this person has no future in the Syrian politics. He did not say how and when, but that was what he said.
Putin: Let me answer the second question first. Mr Tillerson is a well-regarded man, he received the Russian Order of Friendship, and we feel great respect for him and we like him. But he is not a Syrian citizen, and the future of Syria and President al-Assad as a political figure has to be determined by the Syrian people.
As regards the Kurdish issue, this is a very big and complicated problem. We keep in contact with many Kurdish groups and make no secret of this. But with regard to military support of their activities, here our US colleagues are far ahead of the game; they are making much greater efforts in this regard.
Our servicemen – not advisers – who are monitoring the ceasefire are indeed present in many regions of Syria, where the truce agreement has been reached. But speaking of the regions you have mentioned, there are one or two of them there, they are not military units. They are performing the task that everyone is interested in fulfilling.
But so far, we are not witnessing any preparations for military action; quite the opposite, we expect that our preliminary developments on establishing the de-escalation zones in several regions – in the Idlib area, in the north – will be accomplished. And this cannot be done without Turkey's support.
Q: My colleagues here have already recalled the words President Trump said in Warsaw. He made yet another statement about the United States being ready to begin direct supplies of liquefied natural gas to Poland and Central Europe. What do you think of these plans, especially in the context of our plans for the Nord Stream? What if gas becomes a new cause of tension in US-Russian relations?
Putin: I view these plans highly positively because healthy competition is good for everyone. We support an open market and healthy competition. The US President said yesterday during the discussion that the United States stands for open, fair competition. And, by the way, when I spoke, I supported his point.
So, we are absolutely all right with this; if it is so, if there is open and fair competition, no political motives or political resources involved, it would be quite acceptable for us. Because to date, it is an obvious fact that any specialist would tell you: the cost of production and delivery of liquefied natural gas from the United States is much higher than our LNG – even LNG – and is not even comparable to Russian pipeline gas. So, there is no doubt that we have an absolute competitive advantage. But to keep it, our market participants must work hard. They need to retain these competitive advantages.
Q: After the first meeting with President Trump, do you think it would be possible to gradually pull Russian-US relations out of deep crisis they are in, or is it difficult to say anything at all yet?
Putin: I very much hope so, and it seems to me that we have built certain prerequisites for this.
Source here (08.07.17).
Picture: Antarctic Ice World. AJE.
Picture: Global warming - Science, Scam or both? [One]
Picture: Global warming - Science, Scam or both? [Three]
Picture: Theresa May. Grenfell Tower, Kensington, London, UK. June 2017.
Picture: The Global Collateral Accounts Indonesian Gold.
With the Western Nazi-Continuum banking syndicate (aka 'the cabal' or 'Khazarian mafia') now operationally shrunk down to its last centres of influence in Germany, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US Rogue Faction (Fed / Kissinger / Bush / Clinton / Obama), it is reported to be making major attempts to steal gold in Asia to stay afloat financially.
The gold being targeted is said to be held in secure bunkers in places such as Indonesia, South Korea, the Philippines, Japan and Thailand.
Eighty-five per cent of this gold is owned by benevolent Asian groups and forms part of the holdings listed in the Global Collateral Accounts.
The USA Inc syndicate (headed by Joseph Francis Dunford and publicly fronted by Donald Trump) is not aligned with the Western Nazi-Continuum or with the US Rogue Faction. It is a new, separate and quite different military-backed American corporation.
Some introductory historical background about the Global Collateral Accounts can be found here, here (pdf 120pp) and here. And some related ongoing geopolitical commentary can be found here (02.06.17), here (05.06.17), here (08.06.17) and here (12.06.17).
Picture: Are heart pacemakers hacker-controlled assassination devices?
In May 2017, WhiteScope, an American security research firm, carried out technical assessments of implantable cardiac devices, physician programmers and home monitoring devices for four major manufacturers of heart pacemakers.
8,000 software vulnerabilities were found in the computer code of the commonly-used heart pacemaker systems examined.
There was a worrying consistency across all vendors, highlighting inherent system weaknesses in file system encryption and in the storage of unencrypted patient data.
The May 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack, which reportedly infected a medical device in a US hospital as well as medical services in the US and the UK, highlighted the potential implications of software vulnerabilities for the health sector.
Earlier research had raised concerns about security flaws in cardiac devices such as the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and the pacemaker. WhiteScope's researchers were easily able to obtain subsystems for the four major vendors through public auction sites such as Ebay.
A particular concern is the use of third party components: software that is sold by a company other than the original vendor. These components often have vulnerabilities which go unpatched.
As home monitoring devices receive updates to their permanent software, or firmware, via the patient support network, the potential exists to perform a man-in-the-middle attack and issue counterfeit firmware to the devices.
The system used in diagnosis and programming the cardiac implants, which uses removable media/hard-drives, is at risk from hackers who could extract the file system.
The problem is not insoluble. Techniques such as firmware packing, obfuscation and encryption would make it much more difficult to reverse engineer firmware.
Back in 2012, at the BreakPoint security conference in Melbourne (Australia), New Zealand Black Hat hacker Barnaby Jack famously demonstrated hacking a pacemaker to deliver a deadly electric shock
It seems that many heart pacemakers are de facto assassination devices waiting for a hacker to deliver a target-specific heart attack from a remote keyboard.
In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration published guidelines highlighting the security loopholes in various medical devices connected to the internet.
Potential assassination targets, including many major players in élite covert governance, if they use pacemakers at all, will only use them if they are not connected to the internet. A well-known example is Dick Cheney in the USA. Another prominent American abstainer is thought to have been David Rockefeller. He is said to have had a total of seven heart transplants during his life, in order to avoid having to use a pacemaker at all.
Source here (28.05.17). Related references here, here and here.
Picture: Vladimir Putin at the Sretensky Monastery, Moscow. May 2017.
On Thursday 25th May 2017, the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, visited the Sretensky Monastery on Bolshaya Lubyanka Street in the centre of Moscow. The monastery was founded in 1397.
He was there to take part in a ceremony consecrating a new church building, The Church of the Resurrection of Christ and the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Church, in the monastery grounds.
Putin: Your Holiness, Your Eminence, friends, this ceremony consecrating the new church at the Sretensky Monastery is an important and significant event not only for Orthodox believers, but for our society as a whole.
This is because this church is dedicated to the Resurrection of Christ, and to the new martyrs, in other words, to the memory of those who suffered during the years of anti-religious persecution and who died during this time of repression. At the same time, it embodies the spirit of reconciliation.
It is deeply symbolic that this new church is opening on the year which marks the 100th anniversary of the February and October revolutions that were the departure point for many of the serious trials our country had gone through during the twentieth century.
We need to remember both the uplifting and the tragic pages in our history and learn to accept our past in full, objectively, passing nothing over in silence. Only then will it be possible to fully understand and digest the lessons our past offers.
We know how fragile civic peace is. We know this now and must never forget it. We must never forget how difficult it is to heal the scars of division.
This is why it is our common duty to do everything we can to preserve our nation’s unity, maintain social and political concord through ongoing dialogue, and draw on the values of our traditional religions - Christian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism - to prevent hostility and division from taking hold.
Awareness of common goals, chief among which is the wellbeing of each of our citizens and of our homeland in general, is the key that can help us to overcome our differences. The restoration of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church, the 10th anniversary of which we are celebrating, serves as the most vivid evidence of this.
The road to restoring the unity of the Church and reuniting the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was not an easy one.
It could not have been otherwise, for the long years of separation, which had their roots in the drama of a fratricidal civil war, created many differences and great mutual distrust. However, both churches, desiring to strengthen Christian Orthodoxy and strengthen our common homeland, travelled this road with success.
Here, in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church went through trials and suffered great losses, but it always stood side by side with the people. And the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad always helped our compatriots who were far from their Motherland to not only preserve their faith, but also to build close ties with Russia, their homeland, its traditions, language and culture.
The restoration of unity has strengthened these ties. This was an event of great moral significance, a symbol and an example of how our history and the past can and should unite rather than divide us.
Our country and statehood are impossible to imagine without the Russian Orthodox Church’s spiritual and historical experience, which has been passed down through the pastoral word from one generation to the next.
I am sure that this new church at the Sretensky Monastery will become a bright centre of gravity for religious and educational activity and will help to embed deeper in our society the ideas of goodness, mutual respect, and reconciliation.
Source here (25.05.17).
Picture: Book cover. How I lost by Hillary Clinton. Forward by Julian Assange.
Picture: UK. Jeremy Corbyn. The war on terror is simply not working.
Picture: Pope has doubts about the ongoing Medjugorje Apparitions.
Picture: The Secrets of Fatima. Pietro Parolin.
Picture: ET UFO cloudships over Nerja, Malaga, Spain; 10th Jan 2017.
The photograph above was taken on Tuesday 10th January 2017 in Nerja, Málaga, Spain. It is understood to show two identical screened UFOs next to each other. Human meteorologists sometimes describe screened UFOs as lenticular clouds.
It is thought that there has been a major UFO base deep underneath the ancient Nerja caves for many years, possibly antedating the arrival of modern humans (Homo sapiens) in the area.
The UFOs shown are probably Martian. An amateur video of a different, much smaller, kind of Martian UFO seen in Nerja in the summer of 2013 can be found here (YouTube; 1.04 mins).
Picture: Putin to Erdoğan: Our relations are developing just as we planned.
Picture: Erdoğan to Putin: Our countries bear great responsibilities & carry a heavy burden.
Picture: Erdoğan to Putin: The steps we take together can change the entire region’s destiny.
Picture: Knights of Malta. Is Matthew Festing back in Rome, working the darkrooms?
Picture: Knights of Malta. Becciu letter to Festing. 15th April 2017. Stay away from Rome.
The Knights of Malta crisis sharpened during the Easter weekend of 2017. On Saturday 15th April, Archbishop Angelo Becciu wrote to the recently-deposed Grand Master, Matthew Festing. He said that the Vatican wanted Festing to stay away from Rome on Saturday 29th April 2017. On this second date, the Knights of Malta were holding a Complete Council of State to initiate a review of the Constitutions of the Order and to take some important votes.
The Vatican didn't want Festing anywhere near the Council or its voting sessions. The problems of the Order were complex. The Knights of Malta were disoriented by the crisis. Matthew Festing's presence would reopen wounds only recently healed. Having him around the Council on that day would prevent the event taking place in an atmosphere of peace and regained harmony.
This was an unusually strong letter from the Vatican. It followed an equivocal and rambling interview which Festing had given to the Catholic Herald three weeks earlier here (23.03.17). The full text of Angelo Becciu's letter to Matthew Festing can be seen in the image above and its clickthrough, or here and here. Some recent developments are reported here (26.04.17), here (26.04.17), here (26.04.17), here (28.04.17), here (29.04.17), here (29.04.17) and here (29.04.17). And our continuously updated Knights of Malta situation page can be found here.
Picture: If women ran the world. Donald Trump & Kim Jong-un.
Picture: Donald Trump. 59 Tomahawk missiles fired at Shayrat, Syria. April 2017.
Picture: Donald Trump considers Syria chemical weapons. April 2017.
Picture: Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria. April 2017.
Syria: Assad: American policy is based on creating chaos in different parts of the world and creating conflicts among states
On Thursday 6th April 2017, in Damascus, Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, gave an interview to the Croatian newspaper Večernji List (Zagreb).
The following day, on Friday 7th April 2017, based on visually-obvious fake news about a False Flag chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun (Idlib province), the US Rogue Faction attacked a key Syrian military airbase at Shayrat, near Homs, with fifty-nine Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles. Thirty-four of these missiles were shot down by Syrian air defences. The airbase was up-and-running again within twenty-four hours.
The US airstrike on Shayrat was an unlawful, unilateral attack on a sovereign nation which had not attacked the US and had no border with the US. The American aggression was not endorsed by the United Nations; civilians were killed in a local village; there was clear evidence of an explicit war crime. More backgound here (07.04.17), here (09.04.17), here (09.04.17) and here (10.04.17).
Q: Mr. President, we are already into the sixth year of the Syrian war. After the recent victories achieved by the Syrian Army in Aleppo and Palmyra, and the ongoing reconciliations, is there a glimmer of hope of an end to the Syrian war?
Assad: Of course, for without hope neither the country, nor the people, nor the state could withstand six years of an extremely ferocious war supported by tens of regional and Western countries, some of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world. Without hope, there wouldn’t have been a will.
But the question is: how to turn this hope into reality? This has been possible so far through two practical approaches. The first is fighting terrorism, regardless of the different names and categories given to terrorist organizations, and the second is through achieving reconciliations with all those who want to lay down their weapons, return to their normal life, and to the embrace of their country. There has been progress on both fronts: in fighting terrorism and achieving reconciliations. That’s why I say there is more hope now than in the past years.
Q: In the negotiations conducted previously in Astana and now in Geneva, most negotiators on the other side belonged to the opposition which upholds Wahhabi, Salafi, and Jihadi thought. Why are you negotiating with these people in the first place? And is there in reality a moderate opposition as described by the media?
Assad: This is a very important question, because Western officials, most prominently former US President Obama, said that the moderate opposition was an illusion or a fantasy. This is by their admission, they, who supported that opposition and gave it a false moderate cover. So, this moderate opposition does not exist.
The opposition which exists is a Jihadi opposition in the perverted sense of Jihad of course. It is also indoctrinated in the perverted sense that does not accept either dialogue or a solution except through terrorism.
That is why we cannot, practically, reach any actual result with this part of the opposition. The evidence is that during the Astana negotiations they started their attack on the cities of Damascus and Hama and other parts of Syria, repeating the cycle of terrorism and the killing of innocents.
This opposition, between brackets, because it cannot be called opposition, these terrorists cannot be an opposition and cannot help reach a solution. Apart from that, these terrorist groups are themselves linked to the agendas of foreign countries.
They do not belong to a certain current or movement among the Syrian people that seeks political reform or a certain solution, neither before nor during the war. Another part of these groups might look political in the sense that they do not carry arms, but they support terrorism. A third part is linked to the Saudi, Turkish, and Western agenda.
Q: Why are you negotiating with them?
Assad: We do that because, in the beginning, many people did not believe that these groups do not want to lay down their weapons and move towards political action. We went in order to prove to all those who have doubts about this that these groups cannot engage in politics, and that they are terrorist groups at heart and will remain so to the end.
Q: The world has declared war on terrorism. Do you believe that declaration and in what they are doing today, and can we say that it’s only Syria that is fighting terrorism today?
Assad: The world that declared war (on terrorism) consists practically of Western countries which themselves support terrorism. Most countries of the world are against terrorism. They do not declare that, but they have been practically cooperating with us in one way or another during the war, and before the war, because terrorism did not start only with the war on Syria.
Terrorism has always existed in the world and has become more widespread as a result of the different wars in the Middle East. But the Western countries which declared war on terrorism still support it up till now. They do not fight it. It is used only in name for domestic consumption. The fact of the matter is that they use terrorism as a card to achieve different political agendas, even when this terrorism backfires and claims victims in their own countries. But they do not acknowledge this fact.
As to who is fighting terrorism in Syria, it is basically the Syrian Arab Army. This is not only a claim because there are facts on the ground which prove it. The Syrian Arab Army has been able to make these achievements in fighting terrorists thanks, in the first place, to the Syrian fighters’ will, and thanks to popular support. Without popular support, it is not possible to achieve such victories. However, there has been verystrong support from our allies, whether it was Iran, Russia, or Hezbollah from Lebanon.
Q: Does the Syrian Army represent all sects, ethnicities and minorities in Syria?
Assad: Of course, that is self-evident. An army that represents part of the Syrian people cannot win in a war taking place throughout Syria. That is self-evident, regardless of how it is portrayed in the West. At the beginning of the war, the terms used by the terrorists themselves or in the media hostile to Syria in the West and in our region, wanted to portray the war as taking place between sects. This image was widespread in the West.
Had this been real, Syria would have been partitioned from the first months of the war. It wouldn’t have withstood for six years as a unified people. It is true that the terrorists control some areas, but the parts controlled by the Syrian state include all parts of the spectrum of the Syrian people. More importantly, they have some of the terrorists’ families and people who fled from terrorist-controlled areas to state-controlled areas. If this Syrian Army, and behind it the Syrian government, do not represent all the Syrian people, it wouldn’t have been possible to see this unified picture of the Syrian people.
Q: Mr. President, there is a question I have to ask: if there has been security cooperation between the Syrian government and the European states, would we have avoided the terrorist operations which have reached France, Belgium, etc.? I ask this question because after the terrorist operations in Paris, the former head of French intelligence said that you have provided them with names and documents about terrorists, and they refused to accept them. Did they really refuse to accept them? And had there been cooperation, would have we been able to avoid these terrorist operations?
Assad: No, he was probably speaking about cooperation before the war, because after the beginning of the war and the French position in support of the terrorists, Syria stopped security cooperation with those countries, because there cannot be security cooperation and political hostility at the same time. There should be political agreement, on the one hand, and agreement in other areas, including security, on the other.
As to whether it would have been possible to prevent such attacks in Europe through this security cooperation, in normal circumstances, the answer would be yes. But under current circumstances, the answer is no, because Europe, or a number of European countries, support terrorists on a large scale, send to Syria tens of thousands of terrorists, or support them directly and indirectly, logistically, with arms, money, political cover, and everything.
When you reach this stage of supporting terrorists - and here we are talking about tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands in Syria and neighboring areas - security cooperation becomes of limited effectiveness in such a case. Security cooperation focuses on tens or hundreds of individuals, but cannot be effective when there are tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of terrorists.
If Europe wants to protect itself at this stage, it should first stop supporting terrorists in Syria. Assuming that we wanted to cooperate with them, no results can be achieved in these circumstances. We will not do that, of course, when they support terrorism. They should stop supporting terrorists immediately in any shape or form.
Q: Mr. President, I would like to go back to Croatia. In 2009, you visited the Croatian capital Zagreb and met Croatian officials. At that time, I read a statement by Your Excellency in which you said that Croatia is a friendly country and the Croatian people is a brotherly people, etc. Do you still consider the Croatian people a friend of Syria, particularly after the scandal related to arms shipments from Croatia to Washington, and then to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which ultimately fell in the hands of the terrorists?
Assad: Certainly. The Croatian people is friendly people, and our relations are decades old. We are talking about a relationship which has lasted for generations and is still going on. We do not hold the Croatian people responsible for errors made by their governments.
More importantly, if we try to monitor the public opinion in Croatia in relation to what’s going on in Syria, we’ll find that in comparison with other countries, this public opinion has been, throughout the war in general, closer to understanding what is going on in Syria than many other European peoples. Had this relationship and this friendship not been a genuine one, it would have been difficult for the Croatian people to understand what’s going on in Syria.
That’s why I would like to stress that what happened concerning the arms shipment that reached the terrorists was one of the ‘achievements’ of the former Croatian government, perhaps for financial interests, or maybe for political interests in the form of giving in to pressure exerted by other big Western powers. But, in any way, they sold the interests and principles of the Croatian people in return for petrodollars, or in the service of the narrow political interests of those officials.
Q: Is it possible to restore political and diplomatic relations, and probably economic relations, for Croatia has many interests in Syria?
Assad: Of course, this is certainly possible, but this depends on the political orientations of the existing governments. If there have been policy mistakes, particularly those made by previous governments, it is very easy for future governments, or the existing one, to repair these policies.
We ask these governments for nothing except thinking first of their peoples’ interests, and second of the international law which is based primarily on the sovereignty of other countries and non-intervention in their internal affairs. We have never, throughout our history and since relations started between us and Croatia now and former Yugoslavia in the past, carried out any hostile act against these countries. We have always considered them friends. What is the justification for a government to send weapons to terrorists in Syria to be used in killing innocent Syrians. I don’t think there is a justification for this; and we hope that the present government does not accept this.
Q: There is a large number of Jihadis or terrorists who came from the Balkans. Do you have information about their numbers?
Assad: There is no accurate information, because of the existence of our Turkish neighbor led by the criminal Erdoğan who creates all the circumstances necessary to support and strengthen the presence of those terrorists in Syria. This does not allow us to control the borders, and consequently does not allow for accurate statistics about the number of terrorists who go in and out.
But the issue is not about the nationalities of these terrorists, because you know that terrorists look at the whole world as a single arena. They care neither about the national dimension nor about political borders. So, the danger to your country, or to Europe in general, does not come only from European terrorists.
It is true that a European can be more dangerous because he knows the region in detail; but he will come accompanied by other terrorists from other countries, terrorists who share the same doctrine, aspirations, and ideas, in order to carry out terrorist acts in those countries.
So, when we talk about the number of terrorists in Syria, we are certainly talking about hundreds of thousands, at least more than a hundred thousand. Of course, they come and go, and some of them are killed in battle; but this is our estimate of the numbers.
Q: Mr. President, average people in Europe or the world ask about the causes of this attack on Syria and the attempts to bring Your Excellency down. And everybody talks about the reform which you have introduced. What’s the reason behind the calls for bringing you down?
Assad: The reason is old, simple, and clear. Those Western countries, led by the United States, in partnership mainly with Britain and France, and unfortunately some European countries which did not have a colonial history, do not accept independent states and do not accept peer relations. They want satellite states which implement their policies.
Of course, we are not against common interests with other states, with any state. Big states have interests around the world and we, as a state, have interests in our region. We are not a superpower, but when we work, based on interests, with those states, the interests should be joint interests. They want us to act for their interests against ours. That’s why we have always been in a state of struggle with these states over our interests.
For instance, we want the peace process, while they want submission instead of peace. They want us to have peace without rights, which is not reasonable. They want us to give up our sovereignty, to abandon our rights which are acknowledged by international law, Security Council resolutions, and the numerous votes at United Nations for the return of our lands.
These are mere examples. There are many similar issues over which they consider Syria too independent a state. That’s why they thought that waging war on Syria and replacing the current government with a client government would make it easier and better to achieve their narrow interests.
Q: Had you accepted peace, or submission as you put it, would what is happening to Syria today had happened?
Assad: In order to talk about something realistic, I would give you an example. We were asked to side with the West, with the United States in particular, in 2003, in its war against Iraq. We knew that the Iraq war was a series of events aiming at partitioning the region, and we knew very well that the conferences which were held before the war in order to define the future of post-war Iraq, all discussed a future sectarian Iraq, and not a unified Iraq.
So, we knew that what was happening in Iraq will be carried over to Syria and to the whole region. Had we taken part in such a project at that time, the situation in Syria would have been much worse than if we had refused to do so. That’s why I used to say that the price for rejection or resistance is much less than the price of submission and surrender.
I said this many times in the past, and the events in Syria came to prove this argument. What helped Syria to stand fast today is that it is unified. Had we gone along with the sectarian project, following the Iraqi or Lebanese model, as the Americans wanted us to do then, we would have been a country torn by a real civil war. Civil war would have been a reality, not merely a term used to describe what’s going on.
Q: Why do the Gulf states pay money and support terrorists to bring the government down in Syria?
Assad: Most Gulf states are satellite states which do not dare say no. Some of them say: “We support you but cannot say so publicly. We wish you victory in your war and hope you’ll be able to preserve a united Syria and to defeat terrorists,” but in public they say something different, because they are submissive to the Western will. Most Gulf states, if not all of them, were created by the British at a certain stage and handed over to the Americans at a later stage. That’s why we cannot make a judgment on why they say something or why they say the opposite.
Q: They talk about creating federalism in Syria. Is that possible? And do you accept the creation of federalism in Syria?
Assad: Federalism is a national issue; and whether it should or should not happen depends on the constitution. And the constitution needs a popular vote. That’s why we cannot, as a government, say that we accept or not accept federalism.
The government and the executive authority express the will of the people. However, I can give you the general view in Syria. The majority of Syrians do not accept federalism because it is an introduction to partition. There is no justification for federalism, for the Syrians have been living together, in the same structure, without any problems for decades and centuries, even before the existence of the Syrian state, even during and before the Ottoman state.
There are no historical wars between the components of the Syrian people to justify the assertion that these sects or religions or ethnicities cannot live with each other. So, the issue of federalism is made-up with the objective of reaching a situation similar to that of Iraq. In that case they use this or that part of the state, which is supposed to be a strong state, in order to produce a weak state, a weak government, a weak people, and a weak homeland.
Q: Turkey sent troops and has a military existence in Syria. Why do you think?
Assad: Because Erdoğan had pinned all his hopes on the terrorists achieving victories until the battle of Aleppo happened. For him, it was a decisive battle considering the political, economic, geographical, and logistical importance of Aleppo.
The terrorists’ failure to keep their positions in the city of Aleppo as a result of popular rejection on the part of the population of the city and the governorate, and as a result of the achievements made by the Syrian army, caused Erdoğan to interfere directly at least to secure a place at the political table when the time comes for talking about the future of Syria.
He also wanted to give al-Nusra and Al Qaeda terrorists a facelift after he was exposed worldwide as being very close to them, in every sense of the word. He wanted to give them other names, to make them shave their beards and assume the appearance of moderates, to return things to the way they were at the beginning of the crisis, and as I said to secure a role for Turkey in finding a solution in Syria through the terrorists in their new form.
Q: There is the same issue with American troops which are in the country and help the Kurds now. Do you consider them occupation forces?
Assad: Of course. Any intervention, even the existence of any individual soldier, without the permission of the Syrian government, is an invasion in every sense of the word. And any intervention, from the air or otherwise, is also an illegitimate intervention and an aggression on Syria.
Q: Why is America here? What are the reasons in your opinion, Mr. President?
Assad: In general terms, the American policy is based on creating chaos in different parts of the world and creating conflicts among states. This is not new. It has been going on for decades, but in different forms. Through these conflicts, it secures a foothold through the contradictions and through its proxies who are already there but were able to become prominent because of the new circumstances. And then it takes part in bargaining in order to secure its interests in that region. This is an old American policy.
Q: How do you see the election of Trump as President of the United States? And can you cooperate with him, particularly after recent statements on the part of the new American administration which said that the Syrian people determine the fate of the President. Do you think there is a change in the American policy?
Assad: First, concerning the different statements about whether the President should remain or leave, and since the first statement made during the Obama administration, which has been repeated by the political parrots in Europe, we have never paid any attention to it and never commented on it because it does not concern us. This is a Syrian issue related to the Syrian people. That’s why all that has been said on the subject is simply thrown in the rubbish bin.
So, any similar statement, with or against, made now by any state, is not acceptable now, because this is not an American or a European issue, nor is it the concern of any other individual outside Syria.
As to our evaluation of the new American administration, and despite the fact that it is still in its early days, we have learned something important since relations were resumed between Syria and the United States in 1974, when former American President Richard Nixon visited us. We learned not to bet on a good administration. We always say which is a bad administration and which is worse. We do not say which is good and which is better or which is bad and which is good.
What we see in America now are endless conflicts: conflicts inside the administration and conflicts outside the administration with the administration. That’s why we see only one thing in this administration, regardless of the statements which seem to be better than those of other administrations. Since they sent troops to Syria without coordination and without a request from the legitimate Syrian government, it means that this administration, like other administrations, does not want stability to be restored in Syria.
Q: Mr. President, Syria has been subject recently to continuing Israeli aggression. What is the objective behind that? And are you concerned about the possibility of a Syrian-Israeli war?
Assad: Concern about a war is unrealistic, because the reality is that we are living this war. But as for calling it a Syrian-Israeli war, you can assume in any case that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. Even if they are not a regular Israeli army, they are still fighting for Israel. And Israel shares the objectives with Turkey, the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other states. They all share the same objective. It is a war that has taken a new form and uses new instruments. Practically, our victory over the terrorists is a victory over all those states put together. That’s why Israel is doing its best to support these terrorists in every place the Syrian Army advances. They attack in one way or another in order to provide support to the terrorists and in order to stall the momentum of the Syrian Arab Army in facing them.
Q: Recently, many European parliamentarians started to flock on Syria, some publicly and some secretly. Does this mean that something has happened or does this imply a change in the European policy towards Syria? Have they understood that you were right?
Assad: The European policy has not actually changed, because the European officials have gone too far with their lies; and now if they want to make a U-turn, the European public opinion will tell them: you were lying to us. All of what you said was not true. That’s why they have persisted in their lies but with a few modifications from time to time.
They have reproduced the same product using different packaging in order to deceive their customers, i.e. the European public opinion. The Western public opinion has changed, first because those lies cannot go on for six years while belied by the facts.
Second, thanks to the social media, it has become difficult for the corporate media linked to the political machines in the West to control the ins and outs of information and data throughout the world.
Third, this happened as a result of the huge migration waves towards Europe and the terrorist acts which hit a number of European states, particularly France. These different events have made the Western citizen ask questions about the reality of what’s going on.
What has changed in Europe today is that the public opinion knows very well that the corporate media and the politicians are lying. But the public opinion does not know the full truth, it knows only part of the truth and is seeking out the truth of what is happening in Syria, what happened in Libya, and what’s happening in Yemen today, and is asking questions about the relationship between the officials in their countries and the petrodollars in the Gulf states, and other questions.
Q: You said recently that 2017 will see the end of the war in Syria. Do you still believe that the war in Syria will end this year?
Assad: No, I did not say this literally. I said several times that without Western intervention, we can end this war and all its ramifications in a few months, i.e. in less than a year. That was in 2016, and was interpreted that the war was at an end and that the next year will see the end of the war.
Of course, things are moving in a better direction, as I said, not in the interest of the terrorists but in the interest of the Syrian people, but war is unpredictable, especially that the countries which have supported the terrorists are doing their absolute best to protect them, first because the defeat of the terrorists means a political defeat for them in their countries, and second because exhausting Syria is one of the major tasks they have been trying to accomplish through the terrorists and through war.
So, even if Syria was able to come out of this war, they want the bottom line price to be Syria’s exhaustion and fatigue so that Syria will have energy only to feed and rebuild itself and forget all the other issues surrounding it in terms of its rights and duties in relation to the different countries in our region. In other words, they want Syria to be unable to play any active, valuable, or weighty role in the region.
Q: Are you confident of the victory of the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance?
Assad: As I said a while ago, we have a great hope which is becoming greater; and this hope is built on confidence, for without confidence there wouldn’t be any hope. In any case, we do not have any other option except victory. If we do not win this war, it means that Syria will be deleted from the map. We have no choice in facing this war, and that’s why we are confident, we are persistent and we are determined.
Interview source here (06.04.17). A week later, Assad gave another interview extending his commentary on the US aggression against Syria. The full text of that interview can be found here (13.04.17).
Picture: All the important news is good. A New Age Prospectus.
Picture: Marine Le Pen (France) and Vladimir Putin (Russia).
Putin: Russia reserves the right to communicate with all representatives of all political forces in France, just like our partners in Europe and the United States are doing.
On Friday 24th March 2017, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front Party (Front National; FN), went to Moscow to talk to officials within the Russian government. While there, she had a meeting with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in the Kremlin.
Vladimir Putin: Ms Le Pen, this is not your first time in Moscow. I am pleased to welcome you here. I am aware that you came at the invitation of the State Duma - the parliament of the Russian Federation.
We value highly our relations with France and try to maintain good relations with the incumbent government and the opposition.
I am, of course, aware of the ongoing election campaign in France. In no case do we want to influence the events as they unfold, but we reserve the right to communicate with all representatives of all political forces in France, just like our partners in Europe and the United States are doing.
Of course, it would be very interesting to exchange opinions with you on our bilateral relations and the situation in Europe. I know that you represent a European political force that is growing quickly.
I am very pleased to see you.
Marine Le Pen: Thank you, Mr President. As you know, I have long been urging the restoration of cultural, economic and strategic ties between Russia and France, which is especially important now when we face a serious terrorist threat.
The fight against terrorism can only be truly effective if the largest nations stand side by side and join forces. Russia is fighting in Syria. France has contributed by waging Operation Barkhane in Chad and by fighting terrorism in Mali. I believe that our countries are taking a very active part in this struggle, including by providing assistance to the countries that had to fight the rise of terrorism in the past and are still fighting this threat.
Mr President, you know that terrorist blows have been delivered to France. Yesterday terrorists delivered a terrible blow with many casualties. They continue their attacks every day, using new forms of terrorism, including so-called economy-class terrorism, when the blows are delivered by individuals some of whom enter our countries together with migrants to strike at the population on orders from terrorist organisations, such as ISIS.
I believe that in this situation we must do everything in our power to create conditions for an effective exchange of intelligence information in order to protect our nations from the threat that has hit France and has recently delivered a blow to our British friends.
I would like to say that I see it as a big problem that Russian MPs cannot meet with their colleagues from the EU countries. I believe that meetings between representatives of our democratic forces can help all of us find an effective solution to the ongoing terrorist crisis, which, apart from the military aspect, has many other components, as I could see during a meeting with President of Chad Idriss Deby.
As we have said at the meeting with the State Duma Speaker, I believe that all countries should also think about human trafficking, that is trade in people for the purposes of financing terrorism.
VP: As you know, there have been many terrorist attacks in Russia. France, Belgium, the United States and many other countries have also suffered. Unfortunately, the erosion of traditional values in many Middle Eastern countries has intensified violence and migration flows.
Tragic events are taking place in Syria and in Iraq’s Mosul, where hundreds of thousands of refugees were forced to flee from their homes. I fully agree with you that we can effectively fight terrorism only by pooling our efforts.
Today, so soon after the tragedy in London, a tragic event happened in Chechnya in the North Caucasus, where terrorists attacked a National Guard unit. We all live in difficult conditions. We must open our eyes to this threat and join forces to fight terrorism.
MLP: Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that in addition to solidarity and joint actions, which we definitely need, such countries as Russia should consider ways to promote the development of African countries, in particular, in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa. The African countries that are fighting terrorism say this struggle requires significant financial resources. As a result, they have to reduce spending on healthcare, education and agriculture.
Besides, many young people face the temptation of escaping economic problems by joining armed terrorist groups. In other words, I believe that we need a truly global strategy that will bring together all the countries that want to preserve or restore security around the world.
In my opinion, this strategy should include attention to the economic development of the countries that have become the object of the terrorist threat and have to defend themselves against it.
VP: I fully agree with you. You are quite right.
Source: The Kremlin here (24.03.17).
Picture: Surveillance and Privacy. WhatsApp and E2EE.
Picture: In a quantum multiverse, can everything be true?
Picture: Donald Trump. Constitution. Régime change? US or USA?
The Constitutional united States of America was never formally abolished. Is it now being revived? Are we looking at the outside of a churning Deep State régime change?
It is difficult to know what to call the country which lies between Canada and Mexico on the North American continent.
Some think of it as America; others as the United States; others as the United States of America. Unconstitutional lawyers, playing games with capital letters and lower case, call it other things.
One thing, however, is emerging with new clarity. Since Thursday 28th March 1861, the de facto government understood to be running America has been illegal.
28th March 1861 was the day the Congress of the united States of America adjourned for lack of a quorum and was never reconvened.
The Constitutional united States of America was never formally abolished. The governance of the country to which the Constitution applied was simply taken over by prancing actors working for élite financial interests in Europe. With the exception of a few patriots, the American people didn't seem to notice or care. This is still the situation today. The actors have changed; the illegality of their perceived governance has not.
America / United States / US / United States Of America / USA is not a sovereign and free nation; it is a privately-owned corporation whose beneficial owners are old bloodline families and their supporting syndicates.
Since the 28th March 1861, what is publicly known as “Congress” has functioned in one of three different ways:
(1) Either as a corporate Board of Directors for private, mostly foreign-owned and deceptively-named governmental services corporations, operated by banking cartels. One of these banking cartels is called the Federal Reserve. This is the cartel running a corporation called the “United States of America, Inc.” Another banking cartel is called the IMF (International Monetary Fund). This runs a corporation called the “UNITED STATES”.
(2) Or as the government of a legislative democracy calling itself the United States of America (Minor): American “states” more often thought of as federal territories and possessions, for example Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.
(3) Or as a plenary oligarchy ruling the Washington DC Municipal Government (only).
The President of the variously-named large North American country thought of as America is the just the CEO of the federal corporation(s). There are about 39 levels of security clearance above this President, depending on how the counting of covert black budget agencies is conducted. This means that there are 39 sets of projects, facilities, meetings, papers and accounts which the President knows nothing about and has no access to by right.
There are, however, such things as "free sovereign and independent people of the United States"; millions of them, indeed, living on the North Americal landmass between Canada and Mexico.
A question is being put. Are these people now beginning to wake up, restore their lawful government on the land, and enforce the Organic and Public Law of the country?
There are signs that the Trump presidency may be forcing the first step of a benevolent and lawful governing outcome for the American people. This is happening with the support of the military, and could not (bloodlessly) be achieved without it.
On Shrove Tuesday, 28th February 2017, President Donald Trump delivered his first address to a joint session of Congress. That speech ended with the following words:
"From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by our fears; inspired by the future, not bound by the failures of the past; and guided by our vision, not blinded by our doubts."
"I am asking all citizens to embrace this Renewal of the American Spirit. I am asking all members of Congress to join me in dreaming big and bold and daring things for our country. And I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment and believe in yourselves. Believe in your future. And believe, once more, in America. Thank you, God bless you, and God Bless these United States."
Odd ending. These United States. As opposed to those United States? Significant? Or just more expedient thespian prancing?
More background here, here (pdf 1p) and here (pdf 4pp).
Picture: Malaysia. Fraud problems? Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. Najib Razak.
Malaysia: How are Najib Rasak and Ahmad Zahid Hamidi getting on with UBS these days?
At the beginning of March 2017, it emerged that Najib Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, had used his privileged access to unlawfully empty the bank accounts of a wealthy Malaysian citizen. For ease of reference we will refer to this citizen as Mr M. He is a prominent billionaire in Asia.
Mr M's Collateral Security Instruments were held at the Malaysian Central Bank in Kuala Lumpur (Bank Negara Malaysia). It is said that Razak transferred these instruments to a local Malaysian commercial bank account in the name of his wife, Rosmah Mansor.
Razak then contacted UBS in Switzerland and told them that Mr M was dead and that as the Malaysian Minister of Finance, Razak himself was the Executor of Mr M's estate. Razak then claimed Mr M's entire funds, including his Trust Accounts.
UBS asked Razak to produce Mr M's official Death Certificate. Papers were assembled in Malaysia and sent to UBS in Switzerland.
At this point problems arose. First, the papers submitted by Najib Razak were fraudulent. Second, Mr M was not dead. Third, UBS knew that Mr M was not dead. Fourth, UBS and Mr M had been in close contact with each other for the duration of the attempted heist by Razak.
UBS and others are understood to hold transcripts and recordings of the pertinent telephone conversations involving Razak and his agents in Malaysia. They also hold detailed depositions related to their own exchanges with Mr M.
UBS has filed a legal case about Razak's machinations with the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Learning this, Najib Razak is said to have used his position to try to stop Mr M leaving Malaysia. This was abruptly prevented by the intervention of the UN, the IMF, the US Fed and the Swiss government.
Mr M is now living in Europe. He will testify before the ICJ in The Hague in due course.
The people of Malaysia might be unwise to assume that Najib Razak was the sole driver behind in this élite plot. There are indications that Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, may also have been a close co-conspirator.
The case of Mr M and Najib Razak has got nothing to do with the earlier 1MDB scandal which emerged in Malaysia in June 2015.
Source downpage here (03.03.17). And more on the history of the Global Collateral Accounts can be found here (pdf 120pp).
Picture: Western MSM guide to Fake News. MSM False World Narrative.
Picture: Has Shinzo Abe looted the Japan national pension fund?
Picture: Will Trump stop the US Fed's Liquidity Swaps with the EU?
Picture: What is the real reason US Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo has resigned early?
Picture: Did Hillary Clinton try to flee to Bahrain before Jeff Sessions became US AG?
Picture: Marine Le Pen. France. EU. Islam.
Picture: Who owns & controls Antarctica's end-time underground bases?
Who owns and controls Antarctica's end-time underground bases?
This question is being put with new urgency in the light of so many significant individuals among the global élite paying visits in 2016 and 2017, including (visibly) Patriarch Kirill (Russia) and John Kerry (US). Airports in New Zealand and military airstrips in Patagonia (Argentina/Chile) have been busy with private jets on their way to places unknown even further south.
What is going on? And what exactly is underneath the snow and the ice and the black volcanic mountains of Antarctica that is not being disclosed to the public?
It is said that from 1945 up until the US Clinton administration (1993-2001), whenever the text of a new agreement or treaty to do with nuclear relations between the West and Russia/USSR was signed, three primary sets of papers were generated. One of these sets of papers was always sent to Antarctica.
Are those papers still there? If so, where are they kept, and who were they addressed to?
There are further curiosities. Antarctica is twice the size of Europe. No country or countries own it; no country or countries exercise territorial sovereignty over it. Why?
One answer to this has to do with the rubric of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty which now has 53 nations
as participants. This stresses that any human presence in Antarctica
must be for peaceful purposes, such as scientific research. The
Antarctic must not become the scene of international discord or
A strange thing has just happened. For the first time in history, the
British Antarctic Survey has decided not to overwinter at its Halley VI Research Station
for safety reasons. This facility is located on the floating Brunt Ice
Shelf. It will be shut down completely between March and November 2017.
It is said that the growth of a new ice crack is making the location
hazardous. The laboratory and living modules are being moved to a safer
location 23 km from its present site.
That is the story being told by the managing science team at the British
Antarctic Survey HQ in Cambridge, UK. From their perspective, it may be
a true story. But there is a damaging consequence of their management
decision to evacuate the base.
Between March and November 2017 a lot of very sensitive scientific
detection equipment will have to be turned off. There will be a 100%
irretrievable data loss in the middle of several long-running technical
surveys of conditions in the region.
Might something big be planned for Antartica in the middle of 2017 which
someone does not want to be detected by the British Antarctic Survey's
A series of nuclear strikes, for example? The demolition of an
inconvenient ancient city or pyramid complex now appearing out of the
melting ice? The opening or closing of a major transdimensional portal?
The departure from the planet of certain beings/personages by supposedly
non-existent transportation technologies?
Or is something waking up, Warminster-style, in a deep underground base which cannot wake
up undetected if the BAS leaves its sensors running? Something, perhaps,
which might embarrass certain élite syndicates which were once German?
More about the goings-on in Antarctica can be found downpage here (23.01.17), here (22.01.17), here (01.01.17), here (13.12.16), here (07.12.16), here (24.03.16) and here (passim).
Picture: History is created by the brave. Xi Jinping. Davos. Jan 2017.
On Tuesday 17th January 2017, the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, gave a keynote speech at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Xi: I’m delighted to come to beautiful Davos. Though just a small town in the Alps, Davos is an important window for taking the pulse of the global economy.
People from around the world come here to exchange ideas and insights, which broaden their vision. This makes the WEF annual meeting a cost-effective brainstorming event, which I would call “Schwab economics”.
“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” These are the words used by the English writer Charles Dickens to describe the world after the Industrial Revolution. Today, we also live in a world of contradictions.
On the one hand, with growing material wealth and advances in science and technology, human civilization has developed as never before. On the other hand, frequent regional conflicts, global challenges like terrorism and refugees, as well as poverty, unemployment and a widening income gap have all added to the uncertainties of the world.
Many people feel bewildered and wonder: What has gone wrong with the world?
To answer this question, one must first track the source of the problem. Some blame economic globalisation for the chaos in the world. Economic globalisation was once viewed as the treasure cave found by Ali Baba in The Arabian Nights, but it has now become the Pandora’s box in the eyes of many. The international community finds itself in a heated debate on economic globalisation.
The point I want to make is that many of the problems troubling the world are not caused by economic globalisation.
For instance, the refugee waves from the Middle East and North Africa in recent years have become a global concern. Several million people have been displaced, and some small children lost their lives while crossing the rough seas. This is indeed heartbreaking. It is war, conflict and regional turbulence that have created this problem, and its solution lies in making peace, promoting reconciliation and restoring stability.
The international financial crisis is another example. It is not an inevitable outcome of economic globalisation; rather, it is the consequence of an excessive chase of profit by financial capital and a grave failure of financial regulation.
Just blaming economic globalisation for the world’s problems is inconsistent with reality, and it will not help solve the problems.
From the historical perspective, economic globalisation resulted from growing social productivity, and is a natural outcome of scientific and technological progress, not something created by any individuals or countries.
Economic globalisation has powered global growth and facilitated the movement of goods and capital, advances in science, technology and civilization, and interactions among peoples.
But we should also recognise that economic globalisation is a double-edged sword. When the global economy is under downward pressure, it is hard to make the cake of the global economy bigger. It may even shrink, which will strain the relations between growth and distribution, between capital and labor, and between efficiency and equity.
Both developed and developing countries have felt the pinch. Voices against globalisation have laid bare pitfalls in the process of economic globalisation that we need to take seriously.
As a line in an old Chinese poem goes, “Honey melons hang on bitter vines; sweet dates grow on thistles and thorns.” In a philosophical sense, nothing is perfect in the world.
We fail to see the full picture if we claim that something is perfect because of its merits, or view something as useless just because of its defects. It is true that economic globalisation has created new problems, but this is no justification to write economic globalisation off completely. Rather, we should adapt to and guide economic globalisation, cushion its negative impact, and deliver its benefits to all countries and all nations.
There was a time when China also had doubts about economic globalisation, and was not sure whether it should join the World Trade Organization. But we came to the conclusion that integration into the global economy was a historical trend.
To grow its economy, China must have the courage to swim in the vast ocean of the global market. If one is always afraid of bracing the storm and exploring the new world, one will sooner or later get drowned in the ocean. Therefore, China took a brave step to embrace the global market. We have had our fair share of choking in the water and encountered whirlpools and choppy waves, but we have learned how to swim in this process. It has proved to be a right strategic choice.
Whether you like it or not, the global economy is the big ocean that you cannot escape from. Any attempt to cut off the flow of capital, technologies, products, industries and people between economies, and channel the waters in the ocean back into isolated lakes and creeks is simply not possible. Indeed, it runs counter to the historical trend.
The history of mankind tells us that problems are not to be feared. What should concern us is refusing to face up to problems and not knowing what to do about them. In the face of both opportunities and challenges of economic globalisation, the right thing to do is to seize every opportunity, jointly meet challenges and chart the right course for economic globalisation.
At the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in late 2016, I spoke about the necessity to make the process of economic globalisation more invigorated, more inclusive and more sustainable.
We should be pro-active and manage economic globalisation so as to release its positive impact and rebalance the process of economic globalisation. We should follow the general trend, proceed from our respective national conditions and embark on the right pathway of integrating into economic globalisation at the right pace.
We should strike a balance between efficiency and equity to ensure that different countries, different social strata and different groups of people all share in the benefits of economic globalisation. The people of all countries expect nothing less from us, and this is our unshirkable responsibility as leaders of our times.
At present, the most pressing task before us is to steer the global economy out of difficulty. The global economy has remained sluggish for quite some time. The gap between the poor and the rich and between the South and the North is widening. The root cause is that the three critical issues in the economic sphere have not been effectively addressed.
First, lack of robust driving forces for global growth makes it difficult to sustain the steady growth of the global economy.
The growth of the global economy is now at its slowest pace in seven years. Growth of global trade has been slower than global GDP growth. Short-term policy stimuli are ineffective.
Fundamental structural reform is just unfolding. The global economy is now in a period of moving toward new growth drivers, and the rôle of traditional engines to drive growth has weakened. Despite the emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and 3D printing, new sources of growth are yet to emerge. A new path for the global economy remains elusive.
Second, inadequate global economic governance makes it difficult to adapt to new developments in the global economy.
Madame Christine Lagarde recently told me that emerging markets and developing countries already contribute to 80% of the growth of the global economy. The global economic landscape has changed profoundly in the past few decades. However, the global governance system has not embraced those new changes and is therefore inadequate in terms of representation and inclusiveness.
The global industrial landscape is changing and new industrial chains, value chains and supply chains are taking shape. However, trade and investment rules have not kept pace with these developments, resulting in acute problems such as closed mechanisms and fragmentation of rules.
The global financial market needs to be more resilient against risks, but the global financial governance mechanism fails to meet the new requirement and is thus unable to effectively resolve problems such as frequent international financial market volatility and the build-up of asset bubbles.
Third, uneven global development makes it difficult to meet people’s expectations for better lives.
Dr Schwab has observed in his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution that this round of industrial revolution will produce extensive and far-reaching impacts such as growing inequality, particularly the possible widening gap between return on capital and return on labor.
The richest one percent of the world’s population own more wealth than the remaining 99 percent. Inequality in income distribution and uneven development space are worrying. Over 700 million people in the world are still living in extreme poverty. For many families, to have warm houses, enough food and secure jobs is still a distant dream. This is the biggest challenge facing the world today. It is also what is behind the social turmoil in some countries.
All this shows that there are indeed problems with world economic growth, governance and development models, and they must be resolved. The founder of the Red Cross, Henry Dunant, once said, “Our real enemy is not the neighboring country; it is hunger, poverty, ignorance, superstition and prejudice.” We need to have the vision to dissect these problems; more importantly, we need to have the courage to take action to address them.
First, we should develop a dynamic, innovation-driven growth model. The fundamental issue plaguing the global economy is the lack of driving force for growth. Innovation is the primary force guiding development. Unlike the previous industrial revolutions, the fourth industrial revolution is unfolding at an exponential rather than linear pace. We need to relentlessly pursue innovation. Only with the courage to innovate and reform can we remove bottlenecks blocking global growth and development.
With this in mind, G20 leaders reached an important consensus at the Hangzhou Summit, which is to take innovation as a key driver and foster a new driving force of growth for both individual countries and the global economy.
We should develop a new development philosophy and rise above the debate about whether there should be more fiscal stimulus or more monetary easing. We should adopt a multipronged approach to address both the symptoms and the underlying problems.
We should adopt new policy instruments and advance structural reform to create more space for growth and sustain its momentum.
We should develop new growth models and seize the opportunities presented by the new round of industrial revolution and the digital economy. We should meet the challenges of climate change and aging population.
We should address the negative impact of IT application and automation on jobs. When cultivating new industries and new forms models of business models, we should create new jobs and restore confidence and hope to our peoples.
Second, we should pursue a well-coordinated and inter-connected approach to develop a model of open and win-win cooperation. Today, mankind has become a close-knit community of shared future. Countries have extensive converging interests and are mutually dependent. All countries enjoy the right to development. At the same time, they should view their own interests in a broader context and refrain from pursuing them at the expense of others.
We should commit ourselves to growing an open global economy to share opportunities and interests through opening-up and achieving win-win outcomes.
One should not just retreat to the harbour when encountering a storm, for this will never get us to the other shore of the ocean. We must redouble efforts to develop global connectivity to enable all countries to achieve inter-connected growth and share prosperity.
We must remain committed to developing global free trade and investment, promote trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation through opening-up and saying no to protectionism. Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. While wind and rain may be kept outside, that dark room will also block light and air. No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war.
Third, we should develop a model of fair and equitable governance in keeping with the trend of the times. As the Chinese saying goes, people with petty shrewdness attend to trivial matters, while people with vision attend to governance of institutions.
There is a growing call from the international community for reforming the global economic governance system, which is a pressing task for us. Only when it adapts to new dynamics in the international economic architecture can the global governance system sustain global growth.
Countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are all equal members of the international community. As such, they are entitled to participate in decision-making, enjoy rights and fulfill obligations on an equal basis. Emerging markets and developing countries deserve greater representation and voice.
The 2010 IMF quota reform has entered into force, and its momentum should be sustained. We should adhere to multilateralism to uphold the authority and efficacy of multilateral institutions. We should honor promises and abide by rules. No one should select or bend rules just to suit themselves.
The Paris Agreement is a hard-won achievement which is in keeping with the underlying trend of global development. All signatories should stick to it instead of walking away from it as this is a responsibility we must assume for future generations.
Fourth, we should develop a balanced, equitable and inclusive development model. As the Chinese saying goes, “A just cause should be pursued for the common good.” Development is ultimately for the people.
To achieve more balanced development and ensure that the people have equal access to opportunities and share in the benefits of development, it is crucial to have a sound development philosophy and model and make development equitable, effective and balanced.
We should foster a culture that values diligence, frugality and enterprise and respects the fruits of hard work of all.
Priority should be given to addressing poverty, unemployment, the widening income gap and the concerns of the disadvantaged to promote social equity and justice.
It is important to protect the environment while pursuing economic and social progress so as to achieve harmony between man and nature and between man and society. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development should be implemented to realize balanced development across the world.
A Chinese adage reads, “Victory is ensured when people pool their strength; success is secured when people put their heads together.” As long as we keep to the goal of building a community of shared future for mankind and work hand in hand to fulfill our responsibilities and overcome difficulties, we will be able to create a better world and deliver better lives for our peoples.
China has become the world’s second largest economy thanks to 38 years of reform and opening-up. A right path leads to a bright future. China has come this far because the Chinese people have, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, blazed a development path that suits China’s actual conditions.
This is a path based on China’s realities. China has in the past years succeeded in embarking on a development path that suits itself by drawing on both the wisdom of its civilization and the practices of other countries in both East and West. In exploring this path, China refuses to stay insensitive to the changing times or to blindly follow in others’ footsteps. All roads lead to Rome. No country should view its own development path as the only viable one, still less should it impose its own development path on others.
This is a path that puts people’s interests first. China follows a people-oriented development philosophy and is committed to bettering the lives of its people. Development is of the people, by the people and for the people. China pursues the goal of common prosperity. We have taken major steps to alleviate poverty and lifted over 700 million people out of poverty, and good progress is being made in our efforts to finish building a society of initial prosperity in all respects.
This is a path of pursuing reform and innovation. China has tackled difficulties and met challenges on its way forward through reform. China has demonstrated its courage to take on difficult issues, navigate treacherous rapids and remove institutional hurdles standing in the way of development. These efforts have enabled us to unleash productivity and social vitality. Building on progress of 30-odd years of reform, we have introduced more than 1,200 reform measures over the past four years, injecting powerful impetus into China’s development.
This is a path of pursuing common development through opening-up. China is committed to a fundamental policy of opening-up and pursues a win-win opening-up strategy. China’s development is both domestic and externally oriented; while developing itself, China also shares more of its development outcomes with other countries and peoples.
China’s outstanding development achievements and the vastly improved living standards of the Chinese people are a blessing to both China and the world. Such achievements in development over the past decades owe themselves to the hard work and perseverance of the Chinese people, a quality that has defined the Chinese nation for several thousand years. We Chinese know only too well that there is no such thing as a free lunch in the world.
For a big country with over 1.3 billion people, development can be achieved only with the dedication and tireless efforts of its own people. We cannot expect others to deliver development to China, and no one is in a position to do so. When assessing China’s development, one should not only see what benefits the Chinese people have gained, but also how much hard effort they have put in, not just what achievements China has made, but also what contribution China has made to the world. Then one will reach a balanced conclusion about China’s development.
Between 1950 and 2016, despite its modest level of development and living standards, China provided more than 400 billion yuan of foreign assistance, undertook over 5,000 foreign assistance projects, including nearly 3,000 complete projects, and held over 11,000 training workshops in China for over 260,000 personnel from other developing countries.
Since it launched reform and opening-up, China has attracted over 1.7 trillion US dollars of foreign investment and made over 1.2 trillion US dollars of direct outbound investment, making a huge contribution to global economic development. In the years following the outbreak of the international financial crisis, China contributed to over 30% of global growth every year on average. All these figures are among the highest in the world.
The figures speak for themselves. China’s development is an opportunity for the world; China has not only benefited from economic globalisation but also contributed to it.
Rapid growth in China has been a sustained, powerful engine for global economic stability and expansion. The inter-connected development of China and a large number of other countries has made the world economy more balanced. China’s remarkable achievement in poverty reduction has contributed to more inclusive global growth. And China’s continuous progress in reform and opening-up has lent much momentum to an open world economy.
We Chinese know only too well what it takes to achieve prosperity, so we applaud the achievements made by others and wish them a better future. We are not jealous of others’ success; and we will not complain about others who have benefited so much from the great opportunities presented by China’s development. We will open our arms to the people of other countries and welcome them aboard the express train of China’s development.
I know you are all closely following China’s economic development. Let me give you an update on the state of China’s economy. China’s economy has entered what we call a new normal, in which major changes are taking place in terms of growth rate, development model, economic structure and drivers of growth. But the economic fundamentals sustaining sound development remain unchanged.
Despite a sluggish global economy, China’s economy is expected to grow by 6.7% in 2016, still one of the highest in the world. China’s economy is far bigger in size than in the past, and it now generates more output than it did with double-digit growth in the past.
Household consumption and the services sector have become the main drivers of growth. In the first three quarters of 2016, added value of the tertiary industry took up 52.8% of the GDP and domestic consumption contributed to 71% of economic growth. Household income and employment have steadily risen, while per unit GDP energy consumption continues to drop. Our efforts to pursue green development are paying off.
The Chinese economy faces downward pressure and many difficulties, including an acute mismatch between excess capacity and an upgrading demand structure, lack of internal driving force for growth, accumulation of financial risks, and growing challenges in certain regions. We see these as temporary hardships that occur on the way forward. And the measures we have taken to address these problems are producing good results. We are firm in our resolve to forge ahead.
China is the world’s largest developing country with over 1.3 billion people, and their living standards are not yet high. But this reality also means China has enormous potential and space for development. Guided by the vision of innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development, we will adapt to the new normal, stay ahead of the curve, and make coordinated efforts to maintain steady growth, accelerate reform, adjust economic structure, improve people’s living standards and fend off risks. With these efforts, we aim to achieve medium-high rate of growth and upgrade the economy to higher end of the value chain.
China will strive to enhance the performance of economic growth. We will pursue supply-side structural reform as the general goal, shift the growth model and upgrade the economic structure. We will continue to cut overcapacity, reduce inventory, deleverage financing, reduce cost and strengthen weak links.
We will foster new drivers of growth, develop an advanced manufacturing sector and upgrade the real economy. We will implement the Internet Plus action plan to boost effective demand and better meet the individualised and diverse needs of consumers. And we will do more to protect the ecosystem.
China will boost market vitality to add new impetus to growth. We will intensify reform efforts in priority areas and key links and enable the market to play a decisive role in resources allocation.
Innovation will continue to feature prominently on our growth agenda. In pursuing the strategy of innovation-driven development, we will bolster the strategic emerging industries, apply new technologies and foster new business models to upgrade traditional industries; and we will boost new drivers of growth and revitalize traditional ones.
China will foster an enabling and orderly environment for investment. We will expand market access for foreign investors, build high-standard pilot free trade zones, strengthen protection of property rights, and level the playing field to make China’s market more transparent and better regulated.
In the coming five years, China is expected to import eight trillion US dollars of goods, attract 600 billion US dollars of foreign investment and make 750 billion US dollars of outbound investment. Chinese tourists will make 700 million overseas visits.
All this will create a bigger market, more capital, more products and more business opportunities for other countries. China’s development will continue to offer opportunities to business communities in other countries. China will keep its door wide open and not close it. An open door allows both other countries to access the Chinese market and China itself to integrate with the world. And we hope that other countries will also keep their door open to Chinese investors and keep the playing field level for us.
China will vigorously foster an external environment of opening-up for common development. We will advance the building of the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific and negotiations of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership to form a global network of free trade arrangements.
China stands for concluding open, transparent and win-win regional free trade arrangements and opposes forming exclusive groups that are fragmented in nature. China has no intention to boost its trade competitiveness by devaluing the RMB, still less will it launch a currency war.
Over three years ago, I put forward the “Belt and Road” initiative. Since then, over 100 countries and international organizations have given warm responses and support to the initiative. More than 40 countries and international organizations have signed cooperation agreements with China, and our circle of friends along the “Belt and Road” is growing bigger. Chinese companies have made over 50 billion US dollars of investment and launched a number of major projects in the countries along the routes, spurring the economic development of these countries and creating many local jobs. The “Belt and Road” initiative originated in China, but it has delivered benefits well beyond its borders.
In May this year, China will host in Beijing the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, which aims to discuss ways to boost cooperation, build cooperation platforms and share cooperation outcomes. The forum will also explore ways to address problems facing global and regional economy, create fresh energy for pursuing inter-connected development and make the “Belt and Road” initiative deliver greater benefits to people of countries involved.
World history shows that the road of human civilization has never been a smooth one, and that mankind has made progress by surmounting difficulties. No difficulty, however daunting, will stop mankind from advancing. When encountering difficulties, we should not complain about ourselves, blame others, lose confidence or run away from responsibilities. We should join hands and rise to the challenge. History is created by the brave. Let us boost confidence, take actions and march arm-in-arm toward a bright future.
The full, original, English text of Xi Jinping's speech at Davos 2017 can be found here (17.01.17).
Picture: Knights Of Malta. Matthew Festing. Albrecht von Boeselager. Pope Francis.
On Tuesday 6th December 2016, Albrecht von Boeselager (Germany) was
sacked from his position as Grand Chancellor of the Knights of Malta.
This was in direct defiance of the clearly-stated wishes of the Pope and
The Knights of Malta are Roman Catholicism's oldest military and chivalric Order, dating from the eleventh century CE. The full name they give themselves is The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta.
Boeselager's dismissal was the result of a conspiracy between the Grand
Master of the Order, Matthew Festing (England), and Cardinal Raymond Burke (USA).
The row was presented as having something to do with the distribution of
condoms in Africa and Myanmar. It was nothing of the sort. It was an engineered
end-time row about conservative spiritual fascism (Festing and Burke)
versus liberal and compassionate pastoral policy (the Pope) within Roman
Festing and Burke pretended that Boeselager's sacking was in accordance
with the wishes of the Holy See (Pope + Vatican). Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's Secretary of State, wrote to Festing clarifying that the Pope did not want Boeselager sacked.
Because the Pope's wishes were countermanded, the Vatican set up a
formal investigation into the Knights of Malta. This investigation was led
by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi who had a team of four people to assist him with his enquiries: Gianfranco Ghirlanda (former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University), Marc Odendall (investment banker), Jacques de Liedekerke (lawyer) and Marwan Sehnaoui (President of the Order of Malta in Lebanon).
Matthew Festing told the Pope that the sacking of Boeselager was an
internal matter for the Knights of Malta. The Vatican had no right to
interfere because the Knights of Malta were a sovereign entity.
Festing was talking nonsense. The Knights of Malta is a Catholic
religious Order. The leaders of that Order had each taken solemn
religious vows to obey the Pope. The sacking of Boeselager was a naked
act of disobedience. The Vatican had every right, after an
investigation, to issue a ruling and define a remedy.
For the first three weeks of January 2017, Festing persisted in his view that a papal investigation
into the matter was unwarranted. A new compliant placeman, John Critien, was installed as Grand Chancellor by Festing and Burke. Critien wrote to the Order's membership telling them that they could not
collaborate with the Pope's investigation because it was
judicially irrelevant. No member of the Order could give evidence which
contradicted Festing's decision to sack Boeselager.
Critien, like Festing, was talking nonsense. The issue of Boeselager's
sacking and the Vatican's consequent investigation into that act was not
about the sovereignty of the Knights of Malta; it was about disobeying
the Pope and the Holy See.
At that time, exactly what the Vatican would decide to do was not immediately clear. There seemed to be five main possibilities:
(1) Do nothing. Sweep the whole thing under the carpet. Justify this on
pastoral grounds by talking about a need to move on and allowing proper
time for the healing of wounds. Forgive Boeselager and offer him a
spectacular promotion elsewhere.
(2) Sack and/or excommunicate Festing and Critien. Move Burke to a sinecure elsewhere. Reinstate Boeselager.
(3) Sack and/or excommunicate Festing, Critien and every senior First Class Knight who supported them. Move Burke. Reinstate Boeselager.
(4) Dispense Festing, Critien and all their First Class allies from their religious
vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. As many as thirty individuals
might be involved. According to the Order's rules, these thirty could
not then continue in leadership placements because in Canon Law they would no longer be solemnly professed religious. Move Burke. Reinstate Boeselager.
(5) Appoint an external commissioner over the heads of Festing and
Burke. Vatican takes control of every aspect of the Order's
administration, including appointments, management, documents, website, buildings, lands, treasure,
finance and Constitution. Reinstate Boeselager. Express disappointment
at the mass resignations from the Order which would follow this course.
If Burke doesn't resign, move him.
In the event, on Tuesday 24th January 2017, Matthew Festing had a
meeting with the Pope. After this meeting he was asked to resign. Burke
spent nearly an hour trying to dissuade him. Festing, however, did
resign. There was deep dissatisfaction inside the Order with his
His resignation was formally accepted by the Sovereign Council of the
Knights of Malta on Saturday 28th January 2017. During that meeting,
Matthew Festing was heard to describe the Pope as his enemy.
In the view of many in the Order, Festing had become an anachronistic anti-Papal nuisance, hankering after a quaint return to 1950s-style Catholicism, the old rite Latin Mass and
top-down autocratic leadership.
Matthew Festing's interim replacement as Grand Master of the Knights of Malta
was Ludwig Hoffmann-Rumerstein (Austria). Albrecht von Boeselager was
reinstated as Grand Chancellor.
At the time of Festing's resignation, the Pope also appointed a
pontifical delegate for the Knights of Malta, who would act above and
over the head of Raymond Burke as the Order's chief liaison with the
Holy See. Burke was still technically in office as patron of the Order,
but was out of power.
The name of the pontifical delegate was not made public until Saturday 4th February 2017, when it became clear that Archbishop Giovanni Becciu had been designated. He was to be the Pope's sole spokesman on all matters to do with the Knights of Malta. Beccui was also charged with the task of overseeing a moral and spiritual renewal of the Order with a special focus on the fully-professed knights such as Festing and Critien.
Within the Knights of Malta, there are only 55 fully-professed knights out of a total worldwide membership of 13,500. In recent times the impression has been given that this élite group has been using the charitable work of the Order as an expedient cover for geopolitical machinations and forced influence. Such behaviour seems to be signally at odds with the spiritual emphases of the group's religious vows to obey the Pope. It also appears to be manifestly out of harmony with the culture of the lay majority in the organisation who do the visible public work.
A senior Knights of Malta insider, Erich Lobkowicz (Germany), said that
the row had been a battle between all that Pope Francis stood for and a
tiny clique of ultraconservative frilly old diehards in the Church;
diehards who had missed the train in every conceivable respect.
The Pope himself was known to be wary of Catholic chivalric orders,
which he worried could show signs of profligacy and spiritual
worldliness. And the Knights of Malta, in particular, badly mishandled a
child sex abuse scandal when Matthew Festing was in charge of the
The Pope-given task of the newly-imposed pontifical delegate was to work
closely with Ludwig Hoffmann-Rumerstein to ensure a spiritual and moral
renewal of the Knights of Malta. Under Burke and Festing, spiritual formation
processes for the fully-professed Knights had been insufficiently robust.
More Knights of Malta news background can be found here (04.01.17), here (05.01.17), here (09.01.17), here (10.01.17), here (12.01.17), here (13.01.17), here (16.01.17), here (17.01.17), here (25.01.17), here (30.01.17), here (03.02.17), here (04.02.17) and here (06.02.17).
There is, of course, a bigger picture on the reverse of this élite
public portrait. It is an occult image. In attempting to block the
gold-backed benevolence of the Asia-led global currency resets and
their associated humanitarian and prosperity funds, the Order has
hazarded its own survival.
At this fast-moving end-time moment,
the Knights of Malta find themselves frozen on the wrong side of
history, slow-cursed by ancient documents they can't control. The more
percipient among them will be aware of two geopolitical certainties: (1)
Books will be opened; (2) The old centre cannot hold.
Picture: Madame Stuart Merrill by Jean Delville.
Picture: Books will be opened.
More Knights of Malta occult background can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And more about the equivocal symbology of Western Churchianity can be found on our Cuba Crucifix page here.
Picture: In Knights of Malta Land. Matthew Festing. Raymond Burke.
This Knights of Malta feature has now been updated with additional links and archived on a separate blog page here.
Picture: Poland. Is PiS setting up a constitutional crisis in Warsaw?
More on the Poland problem here (26.02.17), here (16.02.17), here (17.12.16) and here (12.01.17).
Picture: Japan. Akihito & Yoshiaki Kobayashi. South Korea's gold bunkers.
Picture: Japan. Hisashi Owada. Princess Masako. House of Habsburg. BIS.
It is reported that there is considerable legal confusion and financial panic in and around the Japanese Royal Family in Tokyo.
At the end of December 2016, Hisashi Owada was arrested in Switzerland. It is said that he was unlawfully attempting to cash in some Sino-Japanese war reparations bonds at the Bank for International Setllements in Basel. Only the Emperor of Japan can do that. Hisashi Owada is not the Emperor of Japan; he is the father of Crown Princess Masako.
Hisashi Owada is a judge and a former President of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. He is an international legal scholar with connections at the United Nations and the OECD. Owada is also said to be a bought-and-paid-for agent of the US Rogue Faction.
This covert American grouping has just lost the US presidential election to Donald Trump and is fast losing influence not just in America, but all over the world in its former slave states. Japan is one of those. Others in the region are South Korea and Taiwan.
The talk in Tokyo is that Hisashi Owada has no Japanese royal blood in him, and nor does his daughter, Masako. She was secretly infiltrated into the Imperial Family at the insistence of the Americans.
A further complication for bloodline purists in Tokyo concerns the Japanese bona fides of the Meiji Emperor (1867-1912). His mother, it has been discovered, was a European princess from the House of Habsburg.
The present Emperor of Japan, Akihito, is expected to formalise his abdication in April 2017. He too is rumoured to be a US-inserted impostor without legitimate royal blood.
More background here (05.01.17).
Picture: US Rogue Faction. Getty Center (CA). DIA (CO).
More here (05.01.17) and here (09.01.17).
Picture: Russia and Ukraine. Vladimir Putin and Petro Poroshenko.
Picture: Nexus Newsfeed.
NEXUSNewsfeed is a free, 24/7, digital, Alternative News site viewable on computers and devices via a free app. It can be accessed anonymously. Its content is curated: no ClickBait; no fake news; no gossip. The editor is Lynelle Roads.
NEXUSNewsfeed has been formed by the incorporation of the former Alternative News Project (ANP) into NEXUS Magazine.
NEXUS Magazine is a commercial publication edited by Duncan Roads from an office in Maleny, Queensland, Australia. This paid-for magazine does, however, offer a selection of 98 free articles from its back catalogue. These include:
Simon Parkes on Aliens and the Illuminati
(22.05.15 - pdf 7pp)
How the Mind Changes Genes Through Meditation
(21.10.14 - pdf 5pp)
Power Struggles and Murders in the Vatican
(30.11.11 - pdf 6pp)
Picture: Opus Dei and the US CIA.
On Monday 12th December 2016, Javier Echevarría Rodríguez (84), the Prelate of Opus Dei, died in Rome (Italy). There has been some discussion on the web about whether or not his was a natural death. The official line is that it was.
Opus Dei is an influential Roman Catholic grouping with close ties to the Knights of Malta. It has senior traction within the Vatican.
A geopolitical question is being put: Was there a demonstrable and documented operational connection between Opus Dei's Javier Echevarría Rodríguez & the US CIA Rogue Faction? This (now diminishing) Nazi continuum faction is understood to have been energised until quite recently by the US Bush syndicate.
More here and here. And more about Opus Dei here and downpage here.
Picture: Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard + bloodline. Netherlands.
Picture: Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard. Netherlands. Mitsubishi. Indonesia.
In 2012, Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard (the Queen of The Netherlands at that time; now abdicated) screwed up on a financial transaction which would have brought her family 3% of a $2.13 Trillion deposit in Asia, and the rest of The Netherlands people 2% of that $2.13 Trillion.
3% of $2,130,000,000,000 = $63,900,000 before tax.
2% of $2,130,000,000,000 = $42,600,000 before tax.
These are useful sums. But it is reported that Beatrix wanted the whole $2.13 Trillion for herself and her family, and nothing at all for the other people of The Netherlands.
She, her family, and the people of The Netherlands ended up getting nothing at all because of Beatrix's maladministration of the financial instrument involved.
The financial instrument concerned was (and still is) a Certificate of Deposit held at the Bank of Toyko Mitsubishi (Japan). The $2.13 Trillion deposited is owned by the depositor: the Asian Dragon Family. The lead signatory is Akihiko Yamaguchi. Unlimited Power of Attorney is held by Neil Keenan.
More detail, including pertinent documents, can be found downpage here (30.11.16). The document images, widely distributed on the web, are linked separately here, here and here.
Since November 2015, Neil Keenan has also been M1 Monetary Controller of the Global Collateral Accounts.
Beatrix is now said to be attempting, covertly, to extort big money out of Indonesia, which was formally a Netherlands colony called the Dutch East Indies. A new financial instrument has been unlawfully magicked into existence to help Beatrix to do this. It is being called a “Debt Repayment.”
The idea here is that for some reason Indonesia, having been despoiled, raped and looted by the Dutch in colonial days, should now retrospectively pay The Netherlands for that service.
In contradistinction, others are suggesting that substantial colonial reparations should, in fact, be paid by The Netherlands to Indonesia to atone for their unilateral imperial pillage.
Whether the President of Indonesia, Joko (Jokowi) Widodo, and his government and advisors, are taken in by Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard's end-time machinations remains to be seen.
Picture: The last goodbye. Vladimir Putin (Russia) & Barack Obama (US). APEC2016.
Picture: Chemtrails. Aluminium Oxide. Barium. Strontium. Bioweapons. Morgellons.
Picture: HAARP. Weather warfare (droughts, tornadoes). Geoweaponry.
In Asia, at full moon on Wednesday 25th November 2015, Neil Keenan was elected M1 Monetary Controller of The Global Collateral Accounts. These accounts contain many quadrillions of gold and asset-backed securities ($93Q are said to have been audited). Most are owned by Asian depositors.
Keenan was the first person to be legitimately elected M1 since President Sukharno of Indonesia, who died in 1970. Since then there have been many impostors promoted as M1 by agents of the US Rogue Faction. In recent years there have been many unsuccessful attempts by agents of the US Rogue Faction to assassinate Neil Keenan.
In November 2016, after Donald Trump had won the US Presidential Election against the US Rogue Faction's Hillary Clinton, he and his transition team sought Neil Keenan's recommendations for executive consideration.
Keenan advised that immediate actions should include: (1) Cessation of Chemtrail spraying; (2) Cessation of the HAARP programs; (3) Curtailing of GMO/weaponised foods; (4) Curtailing of vaccination bioweapons; (5) Halting UN Agendas 21 & 30; (6) Stopping the administration of toxic agrichemicals; (7) Stopping the privatisation of water supplies; (8) Gold-backing the US Dollar directly through the US Treasury; (9) Taking legal action against the US Federal Reserve System (a private corporation); (10) Taking legal action against the US Inland Revenue Service (a constitutionally illegal foreign entity).
Much else of a technical nature to do with attempted élite heists of Asian gold and large denomination (trillion/quadrillion) bonds was also advised.
More detail of the Keenan ► Trump document and its background can be found here (19.11.16).
Picture: Under Donald Trump, will the US pivot to Asia & join the AIIB?
Under Donald Trump, will the US pivot to Asia economically and, with a post-Abe Japan, become a member of the China-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)?
Geopolitically, what is needed is not the UN 2030 Agenda (details here and here), benevolent though much of that élite PsyOp may appear on the surface.
Rather, a much bigger political, humanitarian, environmental and
financial global reset is required, coordinated by a new, reformed,
international body, with non-fiat, gold-backed funding. More than enough
gold is ready in Asia and elsewhere to resource this.
The problem is that at the moment, the UN is known to be a corrupt US private corporation, serving as a money laundry for the global élite. This also goes for the 1944 Bretton Woods Institutions, such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organisation. These, like the UN, are said to be puppeteered for the benefit of the (now bankrupt) G7 fiat banking syndicate and its controlling bloodline oligarchs.
A new UN HQ is reported to have been built in China to receive a new, benevolent global organisation. This could be called the United Nations, once the old US UN corporation has been dissolved, or it could be called something else completely. Every sovereign nation on the planet would be a member by right, providing that it was not a creature of corrupt oligarchic or corporate governance.
The AIIB has a very clear and firm policy on Prohibited Practices. These include Coercive Practice, Collusive Practice, Corrupt Practice, Fraudulent Practice, Obstructive Practice, Misuse of Resources and Theft. More details here (pdf 17pp).
As a conduit, the AIIB and its BRICS associate organisations are considered to be better-fitted to take over the global management of large, benevolent, gold-backed fund flows than the outdated UN or Bretton Woods Institutions.
More current and ongoing geopolitical background can be found here (17.11.16) and here (19.11.16).
Picture: By the end of 2016, 1.6B Muslims will have a new Islamic Gold Standard.
By the end of 2016, 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide will have a new Islamic Gold Standard for the first time in modern history.
The new standard is expected to act as an internationally-recognised consensus on regular gold savings plans (gold accumulation plans), allocated and segregated gold bullion storage, gold certificates, physically-backed gold Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), some gold futures and gold mining equities.
The World Gold Council has stated that we can expect to see an additional demand for hundreds of tonnes of gold, once the Sharia gold standard has been approved. The requisite approval for this was announced on Monday 5th December 2016, at the 23rd annual World Islamic Banking Conference in the Amwaj Islands, Bahrain.
If just 2% of the assets currently managed by Islamic financial institutions are invested into Sharia-compliant gold products, then we should expect to see over 1,000 tonnes of additional gold demand.
What will this Islamic financial reform do to the price of physical gold in the existing global markets after 5th December?
More here (17.11.16).
Picture: EU - Why does the ECB refuse to physically audit its gold?
The European Central Bank (ECB), creator of the EuroZone's new-fangled fiat Euro currency, currently claims to hold 504.8 tonnes of gold reserves.
These gold holdings arose from transfers made to the ECB by Euro member national central banks, mainly in January 1999, when the Euro was born.
At the end of December 2015, these ECB gold reserves were valued at €15.79 billion on the ECB balance sheet.
The ECB says that its gold reserves are stored across five international locations. It also says that it does not physically audit its gold, nor does it divulge a bar list or weight list of these gold bar holdings.
Why is the ECB being so coy? Are its gold holdings illusory? Are they based on fake certificates? Are they predicated on Asian-owned gold in the Global Collateral Accounts to which the ECB has no legitimate title? Exactly how fake is the financial underpinning of Europe's EuroZone currency?
More here (15.11.16).
Picture: Asia. M1. Gold. Global humanitarian and currency resets.
Index of blog contents