With the approval vote in the United Nation Security Council of the P5 + 1 Iranian agreement, a smorgasbord of eager trading partners claw themselves out of the woodwork. The liquid black gold rush is on. With the rescinding of sanctions put into motion, over time the wheels of commerce will be put back on track. No matter what the U.S. Congress does, the flood from international trade will start making deals with Iran.
A sample of some of these activities follows:
“Multinational mobile phone companies, car makers and hospitality firms are seen as the most primed to benefit from the lifting of sanctions.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch said it sees Turkey and the United Arab Emirates as likely beneficiaries from Iranian foreign trade, which could increase to $200 billion by 2020 from $80 billion now.”
“Citi Research analyst Chris Wetherbee said the opening of Iran is a “net positive” for international tanker firms, because Iran’s aging fleet won’t be able to compete, and more energy supplies will be on the market.”
“All of the major banking institutions in the industrial world will try to finance and facilitate increased trade with Iran,” Christopher Whalen, senior managing director at Kroll Bond Rating Agency, told CNBC. “It’s a big country, (and) they are very Western-focused. Iranians are consumers of everything. You can anticipate anything from industrial equipment to consumer products will definitely be bought, and will definitely be financed.”
“Lower crude oil prices following the Iran nuclear deal will contribute positively to the Indian economy, across the oil and gas value chain barring domestic upstream players, India Ratings and Research has said.
A decline in oil prices could lower LNG (liquefied natural gas) prices and this is likely to benefit end-consumer industries such as fertilizer and petrochemicals, it said.”
“Now, with the prospect of sanctions on Iran lifting in the near future, Pakistan is hoping to become one of the early beneficiaries of a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers by finally completing the Iran-Pakistan pipeline.
But funding for the expensive project, expected to cost about $2 billion, is another problem for cash-strapped Pakistan. That is why it is trying to piggyback this project on another one funded mostly by its rich neighbor, China.
China will provide 85 percent of the $2 billion required to build a liquid natural gas terminal at Pakistan’s southern port city Gwadar. The project includes a 700 kilometer long pipeline to other areas of the country.”
“Washington will live to regret this decision as its once greatest allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, as well as Egypt and even Turkey, start to feel as though they were betrayed by the United States.
Looking to counter what the Gulf Arabs perceive as a genuine threat, logic dictates they are likely to turn to Russia for a fresh alliance and to help them counter the Iranian threat.”
“Trapped in isolation with outdated planes, Iran Air – a carrier dragged down by decades of economic restrictions – finally felt a gust of hope last week thanks to the international nuclear accord and a potential lifting of sanctions.
Once the deal is implemented, the Islamic republic will be able to replace its vintage aircraft, some of which are almost 30 years old.”
All these examples share in a common interest that comes from commerce. Nonetheless, buying and selling is seldom a strict barter arrangement. The banking system and currency conversion for payment and settlement becomes a necessary component. The lifting of sanctions is really reducible to reestablishing the financial clearing function.
While the creation of the BRICS trading block provides a workable competing opportunity for Iran to engage, the necessity to transact with Western companies becomes obvious.
Replacement of an airline fleet means buying from Western companies like Boeing and Airbus. Hoping that Russia or China would be able to construct an alternative is just not practical.
The Asian ship builders like South Korea may be looking for future tanker orders, since competitive fabrication companies are producing the most functional naval transports.
Finally, the consumer electronic sector sees the Iranian market as a prime target long restricted from all the gadgets that facilitate global communication.
The United States will lag behind most other countries from trading with Iran for a simple reason. Iranian unwelcoming attitudes towards America will translate into doing business with anyone but the Yankee devil, whenever possible.
While Iranian youth may be far more open to reinstituting commercial relations with America, the political regime holds fast to fighting the imperial globalization of Western corporatism.
In order to grease the gears of advantageous international commerce, the energy sector will still lead an Iranian economic reintegration. Marking the difference between mutually beneficial business transactions from corporatist exploration and plunder of natural resources, should be the task for going forward.
Set aside the politics of the neo-feudalism version of 21st colonialism and reopen the prospects of reducing tension and hatred by abolishing sanctions as a destructive tool for foreign policy.
All sincere parties benefit and profit from cordial business relations. Iran’s desire to have sanctions eliminated offers hope that better relationships and positive interaction can progress.
The overwhelming approval of foreign nations to break the embargo of NeoCon “axis of evil” propaganda demonstrates that promoting “good business” is preferable to detrimental isolation and damaging hostilities.
The proper standard to adopt was established by George Washington in his Farewell Address.
“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.”
Sanctions violate “conventional rules of intercourse”. International affairs never remain constant. Notwithstanding, the wisdom of President Washington, the current political and economic culture is hell bent on breaking the rules for favorable commerce. Resumed trade with Iran will offer a positive opportunity to lower the antagonistic tension and restart rehabilitative dialogue.
Maverick Republican, Donald Trump, has been under intense pressure from the GOP establishment for his off-the-cuff remark about Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). In a televised interview, Trump said, “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Predictably, establishment Republicans immediately called Trump just about every dirty name in the book. Lindsey Graham called him a “jackass.” Rick Perry said the comment made him “unfit” to be President. Mitt Romney said Trump “shot himself down.” (Not hardly! Trump is the clear front runner of all the GOP presidential candidates in most polls.) But, clearly, the Republican establishment is frustrated with Trump’s popularity–and for good reason.
Donald Trump is scorching the GOP for its support of illegal immigration, and he is scorching it for its support of incessant foreign wars. Trump said, “We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion. We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq. We have wounded soldiers all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers. And we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing. And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it.” Amen!
See the report here:
And he is scorching them BIG TIME by calling into question the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer. Specifically, he has dared to tell the truth about the miserable record of John McCain’s treatment of America’s veterans.
See this report:
In refusing to apologize for his remarks about Senator McCain, Trump rightly said, “The reality is that John McCain the politician has made America less safe, sent our brave soldiers into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up for President Obama with the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in the Senate pushing amnesty. He would rather protect the Iraqi border than Arizona’s.”
See the report here:
While most everyone has criticized the second part of Trump’s statement (“I like people who weren’t captured”), hardly anyone has dared to broach the first part of the statement: “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured.” That statement is an absolute fact.
John McCain rose to become one of America’s most powerful senators and became the Republican Party’s nominee for President in 2008 mostly on his Prisoner of War (POW) status. Absent his POW history, McCain would no doubt have lived his entire life in relative obscurity. It usually takes more than simply being a veteran or being the son of a Navy admiral or even being a POW to make one obtain famous hero status. How many other POWs do you know that have achieved McCain’s political power and influence?
Alabama’s Jeremiah Denton was a POW who truly endured intense torture at the hands of the enemy and who became one of our finest U.S. senators. And there was never the first hint of dishonorable conduct or scandal or accusations that Denton used his war record for personal profit. I had the privilege of meeting Senator Denton a couple of times, and the thing that struck me most about the man was his deep and genuine humility. The same cannot be said of John McCain.
John McCain’s POW record has been shrouded in controversy from the very beginning. Many independent journalists and military veterans have accused McCain of being America’s version of “Tokyo Rose.” They offer convincing evidence (or at least credible postulations) that McCain was NEVER tortured, that he received special treatment by his captors, and that he actually willingly participated in anti-America propaganda, in much the same way that Tokyo Rose did in the Pacific during World War II.
One Vietnam veteran who was publicly critical of John McCain was my friend Jack McLamb. McLamb served nine years in secret operations in Cambodia and other nations before going on to become one of the most highly decorated police officers in Phoenix, Arizona history, winning Police Officer of the Year twice before taking a role as a hostage negotiator for the FBI.
McLamb said of McCain, “I know a lot of Vietnam veterans and a few POW’s and all the POW’s that I’ve talked to over the years say that John McCain is a lying skunk.
“He never was tortured–they were there in the camp with him and then when he came in….he immediately started spilling his guts about everything because he didn’t want to get tortured,” said McLamb, contradicting the official story that McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth.
“The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.”
McLamb also said, “The POW’s said that McCain made 32 propaganda videos for the communist North Vietnamese in which he denounced America for what they were doing in Vietnam.
“They have these sealed now, our government has these sealed, we can’t get to it, they have it classified. In truth the POW’s hate John McCain.”
See the report here:
There are many similar reports about John McCain. I suspect that Donald Trump is familiar with these reports. Here are a few of them:
Reports note that former American POWs such as Col. Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson, who were held in the same communist prison as McCain, have gone on record saying that they are very skeptical about McCain’s claims of torture.
See this report:
Another former POW, Philip Butler, a man who was also imprisoned with McCain, is more sympathetic to the man, saying that he had probably been tortured early on in his captivity and made no reference to McCain’s alleged anti-America propaganda charges–but was emphatic that McCain was unqualified to be President. Butler firmly said that he would NOT vote for McCain because McCain was a hot-tempered man who had become a Bush-like warmonger and who had used his POW status for personal and political gain. Remember, this is from a fellow POW who actually likes McCain.
See the report here:
Regardless of McCain’s real war record (the U.S. government has sealed the record, so we will likely never know the truth about the matter), it is a fact that, as one of the most powerful senators in Washington, D.C., John McCain has done little to assist America’s veterans. In fact, McCain is commonly regarded as being one of the strongest opponents to the investigation and rescue of POWs left behind in Indochina following the Vietnam War.
While a member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1993), McCain referred to POW/MIA family members and activists as “whiners,” “vultures,” and “the lunatic fringe.” Although the committee concluded that there were indeed American POWs left behind in Indochina, McCain voted to normalize relations with Vietnam without any accountability for America’s missing servicemen. In so doing, McCain ignored a letter written by fellow POW Captain Eugene “Red” McDaniel and co-signed by 50 former POWs which asked him to not support normalized relations with Vietnam until the POW issue had been resolved.
In 1996, McCain opposed the Missing Service Personnel Act (MSPA) as being “unnecessary” and “burdensome.” He also helped to amend the MSPA to remove criminal liability, which POW/MIA families knew was a serious blow to obtaining meaningful accountability on behalf their loved ones still languishing in Southeast Asia.
See the report here:
And this report:
John McCain has spent most of his senatorial career promoting an open border with Mexico, a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and incessant foreign wars; facilitating the miserable performance of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA); and covering up evidence of Americans left behind in Indochina. No wonder so many people have referred to McCain as “The Manchurian Candidate.”
Read this report:
By telling the truth about John McCain, Donald Trump has hit the rawest of nerves within the Washington establishment (and New World Order globalist elite). Without a doubt, John McCain is one of the globalist elite’s political darlings. A favored son of globalist puppet-masters such as Henry Kissinger, John McCain has been a water boy for the New World Order from the time he entered politics. Guilty of corruption as one of the infamous “Keating Five,” John McCain was given a mere “slap-on-the-wrist” and allowed to continue his pernicious ways.
See the report here:
And McCain’s “war hero” status has made him virtually untouchable–until now.
My mind is far from made up in regards to supporting Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. But, so far, Donald Trump has been willing to courageously confront the Washington establishment in an in-your-face, no-holds-barred manner that we have not seen in a long, long time. And if Trump accomplishes nothing else in his presidential bid except exposing establishment sycophants like John McCain, I, for one, am excited that he has entered the race.
The results of mixing government and religion so terrified the men who crafted the United States Constitution that they created a document allowing the forces of evil to enter with ease; among these men were power hungry elitists who sought a powerful state. The result was a government of the people by the people and for the people, complete with checks and balances; but the door to manipulation of the people was left unlocked.
President Andrew Jackson succeeded in stalling the usury mongers and their Second National Bank for several decades. But the avaricious Bramble men (Judges 9:8-15) returned and found enough traitorous enemies of freedom in high places to steal control. Policies that were already aggressive and belligerent now strayed into an arena that was clearly inimical to the interests of the United States.
WWI and WWII dragged us into European conflicts where we had no vested interest. Unfortunately our citizens never understood that hidden forces were controlling our nation pushing it into illegitimate conflicts that were costly and murderous.
Behind this bloodthirsty mass murder was a quest for world government. Following WWI the League of Nations was paraded out for American approval. It was rejected. The Bramble men, noted for being stiff necked, soon maneuvered hapless Americans into another European war and following WWII the push for a United Nations enamored enough avaricious politicians to get the United States involved in the U. N.’s sovereignty-robbing centralization.
The assault on the United States progressed slowly during the latter half of the Twentieth Century. It involved draining wealth from the United States and transferring it to third world nations. This was accomplished by bribing congress to pass trade legislation that damaged American businesses and American workers. Costly mendacious propaganda programs accompanied these bills and by the beginning of the Twenty- First Century millions of high paying manufacturing jobs had been moved overseas, many of them to Japan and China; it was one of the largest transfers of wealth in the history of the world.
As despotic free trade agreements forced American workers into competition with Chinese workers (who entered the world market at $.25 an hour) high paying jobs migrated overseas like migrant birds flying south for the winter. A higher standard of living in the U. S. made it impossible for our workers to compete. We were told that our economy would become a service economy and that we needed to educate our people to work in high tech industries.
As the high tech industry boomed, labor intensive parts were moved overseas and instead of producing wealth for Americans they added to the success of foreign manufacturers. The United States became a debt producing, consumer entity no longer creating tangible wealth. The futility of trying to create high paying jobs in an alien marketplace was glaringly apparent.
The Twenty-First Century has seen a more vigorous push to bring a reluctant America into a new world order. Under the Obama Administration Congress passed The Trans-Pacific Partnership which was touted as a trade friendly, wealth producing bill that would benefit American workers. The bill was fast tracked through congress where our treasonous elected representatives voted for it without reading or understood its contents. It will add to the plundering of the U. S. economy.
The gross inefficiency involved in shipping goods across the Pacific Ocean and trucking them around the United States is another of the many dissonances in the tyrannical agenda of the Bramble men. We are constantly regaled with the need to conserve energy while the economic order being imposed consumes more than any nation could possibly save.
The final results of the injurious trade agreements have not yet been fully realized. American workers will not become productive until the standard of living reaches parity with the lowest wage nations of the world. That will take time; wages in the U. S. will go down and wages in Asia will rise. As parity is realized the flow of immigration into the United States will diminish and a semblance of stability will be realized. As a poorer and less powerful nation Americans will work for lower wages and live without the luxuries they formerly enjoyed. In the meantime the remaining wealth accumulated by the older, retired generation will be slowly siphoned off to higher taxes and inflation.
Signs of the new economy can be seen in shopping malls where stores are beginning to close leaving empty spaces that will remain unrented. These unrented units are a result of a declining standard of living. As this decline continues America’s market will shrink and nations that depend on exports into it will suffer a serious drop in revenue. The U.S. market has been the engine of economic progression for third world nations; their standard of living has risen as the U. S. standard declined.
Efforts to conquer and enslave the world’s population are not new. History is replete with empires that have had various amounts of success. However, there has never before been a technology that would allow the amount of individual control that is now in the hands of the Bramble men nor have the people of the world ever been more self-absorbed and less aware of the danger.
During the past few decades United States has seen an astounding deterioration in public moral standards and a brazen willingness of our courts to erode existing concepts of righteousness. The two party system has been compromised almost from the inception of the nation. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is an idea that placates the masses but in reality has failed to sustain freedom.
The Bramble men who own and control our press and media are currently busy obliterating the Confederate flag. When they activate their massive propaganda machine it soon creates enough support for an array of evil agendas to cause serious conflicts in our society. They have supported abortion, feminism, homosexuality, open borders, restrictions on speech, Black militancy, special rights, social immorality, pornography, anti-Christianity, open borders and more.
The Bramble men seek historic revisionism as an additional means of destroying our Nation. As I write this essay there is very little left of the free and righteous nation in which I grew up. The Bramble men have succeeded in destroying our Constitution, our religion, our culture, our morality, our compassion, our money, our educational system, our food supply, our reputation and more.
Vice- President Biden claims the Bramble men have been responsible for legislation in favor of homosexual marriage.
While our insouciant citizens wallow in the mud of evil, the inexorable demolition of our nation continues. They watch as the Bramble men select and properly endow the 2016 presidential candidates and line up to support one or the other of which will continue to ruin what used to be a free and prosperous nation. It is a charade that has gone on for decades and will undoubtedly continue.
In “Our Threatened Freedom” R. J. Rushdoony writes, “If a civil government is a terror not to evildoers, but to the law abiding, then it has lost its main reason for existence. Such a civil government has then become a self-serving power. It collects taxes to support itself, grow bigger and richer, and to increase its power and control over us.” Pg. 236
America has become a large plantation where citizens work while the Bramble men skim the monetary cream from the operation leaving citizens, whose ancestors founded and built the nation, poor and disenfranchised. It is a money energized rape that few of the victims recognize.
We are in the midst of the Battle of the Ages; a battle against “good” and “evil” – a war between the One True God and the Devil. Few of our citizens know or care about the conflict. Our churches have become useless, humanistic entertainment centers chosen by their parishioners as one would choose a good movie. Propaganda is pandemic. We live in a sea of lies that distort reality and create a make believe world.
Humanists quickly lose their ability to discern truth and begin to avoid and denigrate those that tell them. Elizabeth White, a Seventh Day Adventist writer, describes it this way: “Satan is seeking to deceive men and lead them to call sin righteousness, and righteousness sin. How successful has been his world! How often censure and reproof are cast upon God’s faithful servants because they will stand fearlessly in defense of the truth! Men who are but agents of Satan are praised and flattered, and even looked upon as martyrs, while those who should be respected and sustained for their fidelity to God, are left to stand alone, under suspicion and distrust.” The Great Controversy, Pg. 98
Gay marriage defies God, It defies reason, and it defies nature. It accurately represents the insanity that grips the evil Bramble men that American citizens have helped to acquire powerful positions in God’s creation. The Bible burners are on the precipice with their torches aflame. They will try again to destroy the Word of God, but they will not succeed for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not allow it. Out of this dark time will come a new and vital righteousness that will bring a different new world order built on the peace and prosperity of God’s immutable Law
”The question is: By adhering to its highest principles and ideals, will America continue to have the moral authority to lead all people of goodwill? The answer remains to be seen. And that answer will have much to do with whether we have the courage to drive the money changers from the temple of democracy and recapture government of the people, for the people, and by the people”. Gary Hart
I was born and raised in a Christian home. I accepted Christ as my Savior at the age of five. I surrendered to the Gospel ministry at the age of eighteen. I attended or have diplomas and degrees from four Bible colleges. I started pastoring when I was twenty-three years of age. And I just observed my fortieth year of continuous pastoral ministry. As Paul said to his son in the faith, Timothy, so I can say, “And that from a child [I have] known the holy scriptures.” (II Tim. 3:15)
Obviously, I am no stranger to the work of God. I have been in church all of my life. Though my dad was not a full-time minister (even though he was ordained), his best friends were pastors. As a result, I have been around pastors and Christian workers all of my life. So, I am not speaking as an outsider. I know church work from the inside out. I’ve seen it; I’ve been taught it; and I’ve experienced it. The good, the bad, and the ugly: I’ve seen it all.
We pastors and Christians are never going to agree on every nuance of scriptural interpretation or method of ministry. But the vast majority of us will agree that Christ alone is our Sovereign and the Bible is the rule for our faith and practice.
SO, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?
Caesar has demanded that we recognize the legal “right” of homosexuals and lesbians to “marry.” It will not be long before each and every one of us pastors and ministers will, first, be ASKED to “marry” same-sex couples, and, then, be REQUIRED to “marry” same-sex couples.
WHAT WILL WE DO?
Some pastors are waiting to hear from their denominational superiors for instructions. Some are, no doubt, trying to keep quiet about the subject and hope they can somehow avoid dealing with it. Some are now counseling with attorneys for guidance. But, in truth, our guidance and instruction do not come from denominational officers or lawyers; and it is a cold, hard fact that there is NO avoiding the issue. Sooner or later (probably sooner), each of us will have to make a conscientious decision that is based solely on our moral and scriptural convictions.
AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO?
For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of religion and conscience became a matter of state licensure in 1954 when churches were included in the Internal Revenue Code, section 501c3, as mere non-profit organizations. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom to pray and read the Bible was removed from our public schools in 1962 and ’63. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the freedom of God-ordained self-defense became a state-sanctioned license and privilege in 1968. For the most part, our pulpits were silent when the God-ordained right to life of unborn babies was expunged in 1973. For the most part, our pulpits have been silent as our Natural rights of privacy and local autonomy began being stripped from us in 2001. And, now, the most important institution in human history, Holy Matrimony, has been “redefined” by Caesar’s court.
Will we pastors remain silent? Will we sheepishly submit to this egregious and tyrannical assault against the most fundamental institution created by God? Will we become willing accomplices to the formalization of egregiously unnatural perversion?
WHAT WILL WE DO?
Can we not see that what is at stake is the preservation of religious liberty and Christian conscience in our land? Radical secularists (and even some anti-Christian religionists) desire to expunge every semblance of Christian thought and ideology from our nation. The purge has already begun.
All over America, lawsuits against pastors who refuse to marry same-sex couples have already been filed. The same is true for Christians in various service industries that refuse to cater to homosexual “marriages.” Militant homosexuals have brought a $70 million lawsuit against the two largest publishers of the Bible (Zondervan and Tyndale), demanding that the Scriptures condemning sodomy be eviscerated.
It will not be long and cultural Marxists will see to it that the homosexual lifestyle will be promoted in every conceivable public venue. Movies, television (even children’s programs), books, music, magazines, etc., will openly promote the sodomite lifestyle. Common Core curriculum will certainly advocate for homosexual conduct in America’s public schools. Homosexuals will demand the right to flaunt their romantic proclivities in public. Restaurants, concert houses, theaters, meeting places, even churches, will be sued if they do not allow homosexuals to openly display their perversity. Again, this is already beginning.
And for pastors and churches specifically, the big intimidation factor is the IRS tax-exempt status. Already, some of the largest and most notable newspapers, periodicals, and newscasts are calling for the removal of tax-exempt churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples. Some are even calling for the removal of tax-exempt status of ALL churches.
If the “great recession” of 2008 and ’09 was the natural “correction” of a manipulated economic “bubble,” I submit that the Hodges decision is the natural (or maybe divine) correction of a manipulated spiritual bubble. For over a half-century, churches have been intoxicated with “success.” The Joel Osteen-brand of Christianity has obfuscated the true purpose of the church. Pleasing Caesar and maintaining tax-exempt status (at all costs) have supplanted pleasing God and maintaining Biblical status. The result is a church that is “increased with goods” but that is spiritually “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17)
In reality, the Hodges Supreme Court decision was inevitable. It was the result of the spiritually polygamous marriage between the church and state in 1954. It was the result of a church that, like the Jewish Pharisees of old, said, “We have no king but Caesar,” while pretending to be married to Christ.
Well, now God has forced his pastors and churches to take a stand. There is no beating around the bush anymore. There is no avoiding the issue. Pastors and churches will either submit to Christ or they will submit to Caesar. There is no middle ground. There is no more fence-straddling.
Again, the root cause of all of this is the church’s acceptance of state licensure, and, therefore, state authority. Churches committed spiritual adultery when they allowed themselves to take the 501c3 wedding band. By doing so, they became “creatures of the state” and ceased to be the “bride” of Christ. And, remember, our God is a jealous God. “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
Since the state has decided to repudiate the Natural authority of marriage as given by our Creator, it behooves us, as Christian ministers, to repudiate state authority over marriage. That means we should immediately cease and desist from officiating over any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, that includes a license from the state. That is exactly what I will do.
In terms of the history of the Church, as well as Western Civilization, state-licensure of marriages is very recent. For over 1,800 years, almost no marriages (if any) required state-licensure. A certificate of marriage or declaration of marriage or church approbation–or other such recognition–was all that was needed. I don’t know about all of the 50 states, of course, but in my home State of Montana, marriages do NOT require a State license. And that’s exactly the way it should be.
WHAT ABOUT IT, PREACHER? WHAT WILL YOU DO?
Is a state-created tax-exempt license more important than fidelity to Christ and the Scriptures? Let me speak plainly: so what if we lose our tax-exempt status?
I hear my brethren exclaim, “But, Brother Chuck, we will lose tithing members. If they cannot claim their contributions on their tax forms, they will stop giving to the church.” My response is: SO BE IT.
Our churches are filled with careless, insincere, half-hearted Christians. God promised to separate the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the chaff; I believe He is doing just that in the United States right now. America’s churches have been living in a manipulated spiritual “bubble.” The bubble is bursting. It’s long overdue.
Churches in oppressed countries around the world are not worrying about some kind of tax-exempt status. They are not creatures of the state. Many of them are not even recognized as being legal in their states. Many of them are “unofficial,” “unregistered,” “unlawful,” etc. But they are true to Christ and His Word–and their numbers are flourishing.
In just a few years, there will be more Christians in Communist China than in so-called “Christian” America–a first since America came into existence. And there is no tax-exempt status afforded them. At the same time here in America, Christianity is in steep decline. What’s the difference? In China, churches do not seek, nor will they accept, state recognition and endorsement, while here in America churches enthusiastically embrace state recognition and endorsement (licensure).
It’s time we find out who is real and who isn’t.
And a question for those church members out there: What are you going to do if your pastor agrees to marry same-sex couples? If your pastor will not take a stand on this, he won’t take a stand on ANYTHING. And, if he hasn’t said anything from the pulpit already, why are you still there?
Are you not willing to give your tithes and offerings to a church even if those financial gifts are NOT tax deductible? If not, what is your real motivation for giving to begin with? Are you not willing to sit under the preaching of a courageous man of God who is the servant of God and not the servant of men–even men in government? If not, why are you even attending church?
Christians have been flocking to these “feel-good” churches for decades. They continued to support spineless pastors, who refused to take a stand for the God-ordained duty of self-defense; who refused to take a stand against the killing of unborn babies; who refused to speak out for religious liberty; and who are currently refusing to take a stand against an Orwellian Police State being created in front of our very eyes. Will they now continue to stay inside those churches whose pastors refuse to take a stand for God-ordained marriage?
I submit that either the Church in America repents and does the “first works” or it will quickly lose its “candlestick.” Truly, “the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.” (I Peter 4:17)
AGAIN, WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?
There’s been a virtual blackout of news from this year’s seventh annual BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia. None of the mainstream media organizations are covering the meetings or making any attempt to explain what’s going on. As a result, the American people remain largely in the dark about a powerful coalition of nations that are putting in place an alternate system that will greatly reduce US influence in the world and end the current era of superpower rule.
Let’s cut to the chase: Leaders of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) realize that global security cannot be entrusted to a country that sees war as a acceptable means for achieving its geopolitical objectives. They also realize that they won’t be able to achieve financial stability as long as Washington dictates the rules, issues the de facto “international” currency, and controls the main levers of global financial power. This is why the BRICS have decided to chart a different course, to gradually break free from the existing Bretton Woods system, and to create parallel system that better serves their own interests. Logically, they have focused on the foundation blocks which support the current US-led system, that is, the institutions from which the United States derives its extraordinary power; the dollar, the US Treasury market, and the IMF. Replace these, the thinking goes, and the indispensable nation becomes just another country struggling to get by. This is from the Asia Times:
“Leaders of the BRICS… launched the New Development Bank, which has taken three years of negotiations to bring to fruition. With about $50 billion in starting capital, the bank is expected to start issuing debt to fund infrastructure projects next year. They also launched a foreign-exchange currency fund of $100 billion.
The two new endeavors are statements that the five largest emerging markets are both looking out for each other and, simultaneously, moving away from the western financing institutions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
“The BRICS states intend to actively use their own resources and internal resources for development,” Putin said, according to Reuters. “The New (Development) Bank will help finance joint, large-scale projects in transport and energy infrastructure, industrial development.”…..Birthing the two initiatives in Russia had been Putin’s top priorities.”
(“Russia’s Putin scores points at Ufa BRICS summit“, Asia Times)
Can you see what’s going on? Putin has figured out the empire’s vulnerabilities and he’s going straight for the jugular. He’s saying: ‘We’re going to issue our own debt, we’re going to run our own system, we’re going to fund our own projects, and we’re going to do it all in our own currency. Kaboom. The only thing you’re going to be doing, is managing your own accelerating economic decline. Have a good day.’ Isn’t that the gist of what he’s saying?
So can you see, dear reader, why none of this is appearing on the pages of US newspapers or on US television. Washington would rather you didn’t know how they’ve bungled everything by alienating the fastest growing countries in the world.
The Ufa conference is a watershed moment. While the Pentagon is rapidly moving troops and military hardware to Russia’s borders, and one bigwig after another is bloviating about the “Russian threat”; the BRICS have moved out of Washington’s orbit altogether. They are following the leadership of men who, frankly speaking, are acting exactly like US leaders acted when the US was on the upswing. These are guys who “think big”; who want to connect continents with high-speed rail, lift living standards across the board, and transform themselves into manufacturing dynamos. What do America’s leaders dream about: Drone warfare? Balancing the budget? Banning the Confederate flag?
It’s a joke. No one in Washington has a plan for the future. It’s all just political opportunism and posturing. Check this out from The Hindu:
“China and Russia have described BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as the core of a new international order…
Russian President Vladimir Putin said… “There is no doubt — we have all necessary premises to expand the horizons of mutually beneficial cooperation, to join together our raw material resources, human capital and huge consumer markets for a powerful economic spurt.”
Russia’s Tass news agency also quoted Mr. Putin as saying that the Eurasian continent had vast transit potential. He pointed to “the construction of new efficient transport and logistics chains, in particular, the implementation of the initiative of the Silk Road economic belt and the development of transportation in the eastern part of Russia and Siberia. This may link the rapidly growing markets in Asia and Europe’s economies, mature, rich in industrial and technological achievements. At the same time, this will allow our countries to become more commercially viable in the competition for investors, for creating new jobs, for advanced enterprises,” he observed.”….
The summit also acknowledged “the potential for expanding the use of our national currencies in transactions between the BRICS countries.” (“BRICS, SCO, EAEU can define new world order: China, Russia“, The Hindu)
The dollar is toast. The IMF is toast. The US debt market (US Treasuries) is toast. The institutions that support US power are crumbling before our very eyes. The BRICS have had enough; enough war, enough Wall Street, enough meddling and hypocrisy and austerity and lecturing. This is farewell. Sure, it will take time, but Ufa marks a fundamental change in thinking, a fundamental change in approach, and a fundamental change in strategic orientation.
The BRICS are not coming back, they’re gone for good, just as Washington’s “pivot to Asia” is gone for good. There’s just too much resistance. Washington has simply overplayed its hand, worn out its welcome. People are sick of us.
Can you blame them?
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.
One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”
The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!
The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.
By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?
That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.
In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.
If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!
By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”
And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.
The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.
In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.
Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”
Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.
One of America’s most notorious bank robbers, Willie Sutton(1901-80), is said to have remarked that he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.” In a strange twist, the banks themselves are now beginning literally to rob their own customers.
The theft occurs via the innovative practice of “paying” (i.e. “charging”) negative interest rates on savings and checking account balances combined with account maintenance fees. Cash strapped Greece is looking to go even further – charging customers for daring to withdraw cash! So what gives here?
Banking Policies Are Becoming Injurious to Your Financial Well-being
Since the global financial near-collapse of 2008, Central Banks, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve, have tried to solve the problem of faltering economies, excessive debt creation, government deficit spending and a deflationary landscape by flooding the system with fiat money, literally created out of thin air.
Their reasoning is that the problem of excessive, unpayable debt can be solved by creating still more debt!
If you had trouble paying off a $300,000 dollar home mortgage, would borrowing another $200,000 to continue making payments help you solve your dilemma? Of course not. You would simply owe a total of $500,000! Yet this is exactly what many of the world’s leading financial wizards have been doing to keep government budgets afloat for the last 7 years.
In an effort to stimulate the economy and encourage consumption, the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates well below where they would be if allowed to fluctuate based on free-market forces like business and consumer demand.
This has taken us to a Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), which by definition is theoretically the lowest rate that a central bank can impose as part of its strategic agenda. The closer rates get to zero, the fewer options monetary planners have at their disposal to attempt to stimulate economic demand.
Altering Your Behavior
The effect of excessive money creation has been compared to the liquid sloshing around in a giant punch bowl.
And since interest rates are so low, investors must take on more risk in the search get greater returns. Across the globe, this new money – in an uncontrolled manner – seeks out profitable venues for growth.
A great deal of the central bank-created paper/digital money thus ends up chasing finite amounts of art, real estate, collectibles, or financial assets like stocks or bonds. This has sparked the latest stock market bull runs in one country or another, leading to new and unsustainable bubbles.
Afterwards, the supposedly most-connected person on the planet – the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman – always seems to be surprised.
The War against Cash
While investors are chased into higher risk assets in search of yield, we are witness to a simultaneous “war on cash.”
Governments around the globe have lowered the amount of cash a person can withdraw without attracting the attention of authorities, who snoop on you to make extra sure you aren’t dealing drugs or selling weapons to terrorists. France, Sweden, Denmark, Israel are just the most recent to have announced this change.
With the formation of groups like the Orwellian “Better Than Cash Alliance,” plans are underway to eliminate cash altogether and leave the public with little choice but to keep all their money in a digital account. While using only electronic money may seem to be more “efficient,” it makes it possible for authorities to track all of your financial dealings AND even allow banks to impose a Negative Interest Rate Policy (NIRP) upon you.
Without measures to prevent block them, account holders with cash balances might choose to withdraw and hoard paper currency. That would be the simplest way to escape negative interest rates.
But with funds trapped inside of bank accounts, bankers could simply deduct the negative rate charge from each customer’s balance. (Question: Would not such “digital cash balance robbery” be just a modernized version of what Willie Sutton was doing back in the day?)
Targeting You for Outright Theft through NIRP or Asset Forfeiture
And then there are the rising abuses of Civil Asset Forfeiture. If you’re stopped on the road and have a few thousand dollars on you – no matter that you might be going to buy a used car or plan to make some purchases during an extended vacation… the police can easily deprive you of the cash, without even charging you with a crime.
In recent years, Civil Asset Forfeitures have reached the scale of billions of dollars. And police departments come to depend on this tempting “revenue stream,” creating the perverse incentive to seize even more.
Following a lengthy investigation last year, The Washington Post reported,
“There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.”
“Monetary thinkers” feel things would be so much more efficient — for the government — if we all went totally to digital accounts. No need to carry cash around or pay bills by mail. The authorities will know exactly how much money you have and what you spend it on, placing your balance under their control at the press of a button.
Coming Soon to a location near you?
The legend of the Greek craftsman Daedalus is relevant today. He learned how to fly and taught his son Icarus – cautioning him not to get too close to the sun at the risk of melting the wax on his wings.
Immensely powerful central bankers believe that they can safely “fly high” with their monetary policies. But like Icarus, who flew too close to the sun and plunged from the sky when his contraption fell apart, so too do our monetary authorities run the risk of similar demise – and taking the rest of us down with them.
Financial Repression Has One Logical Outcome…
In a recent article at mining.com, David Levenstein really nails it, saying:
“Financial repression has long been a driver of demand for physical precious metals. This demand will accelerate as measures become more draconian. Some bank customers… will decide that bullion is a better option than sitting on piles of depreciating paper currency or paying banks to hold deposits… Historically, only gold and silver have been trusted private stores of value as well as a hedge against political, financial, and economic turmoil. In such an insane environment, gold and silver will become the only real trusted alternative to fiat currencies. And, as more new capital flows into physical bullion, its price will soar.”
Got gold? Got silver? Got common sense?
“China is reaching deep within the world island in an attempt to thoroughly reshape the geopolitical fundamentals of global power…… Its two-step plan is designed to build a transcontinental infrastructure for the economic integration of the world island from within, while mobilizing military forces to surgically slice through Washington’s encircling containment…….If China succeeds in linking its rising industries to the vast natural resources of the Eurasian heartland, then quite possibly…. “the empire of the world would be in sight.”
— Alfred McCoy, The Geopolitics of American Global Decline, The Unz Review
“The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.”
— Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, “America’s Pacific Century”, Foreign Policy magazine.
June 23, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Counterpunch” – China’s meteoric rise has Washington worried, not because China is a threat to its neighbors or to US national security, but because China’s influence is expanding across the region. It’s creating the institutions it needs to finance its own development (AIIB and New BRICS Bank), it’s building the infrastructure needed to connect the continents with state-of-the-art high-speed rail (New Silk Road), and its attracting allies and trading partners who want to participate in its plan for growth and prosperity. This is why Washington is worried; it’s because China has transformed itself into an economic powerhouse that doesn’t conform to the neoliberal model of punitive austerity, pernicious privatization, and madcap asset inflation. China has slipped out of the empire’s orbit and charted its own course, which is why Washington wants to provoke Beijing over its negligible land reclamation activities in the South China Sea. Washington thinks it can succeed militarily where it has failed economically and politically. Case in point; check this out from Bloomberg News:
“The U.S. and Japan are conducting separate military drills with the Philippines near the disputed South China Sea,…The annual CARAT Philippines joint exercise started Monday off the east coast of Palawan island and will run until June 26, according to U.S. Navy spokesman Arlo Abrahamson. The Philippine and Japanese navies are holding drills around the same island through June 27, Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force said last week.
The U.S. has backed Southeast Asian nations including the Philippines as tensions escalate with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea, while Japan is providing patrol vessels to the Philippine coast guard….The drill includes a sea phase with the littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth, diving and salvage ship USNS Safeguard and a P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft and at least one Philippine frigate, according to the U.S. Navy….
Japan’s exercises with the Philippines will take place adjacent to the Spratly Islands, where China has created more than 2,000 acres of land in waters also claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia. Japan will send a P-3C anti-submarine, maritime surveillance aircraft and 20 personnel.” (“U.S., Japan Join Philippines in Navy Drills Near South China Sea”, Bloomberg)
The “show of force” drills are designed to harass and intimidate China. They have no other purpose. The US wants to force China to succumb to its diktats, to abandon its commitment to new institutions, to open its markets to US corporations and Wall Street, and to allow the US a free-hand in writing trade rules. That’s what Washington really wants and that’s why the moderate Chuck Hagel was dumped for the combative Ashton Carter as Secretary of Defense. US powerbrokers wanted a scrappy taskmaster who’d bloody China’s nose and show them who’s boss. Carter fit the bill to a “T”, an icy bureaucratic leg-breaker who fancies himself the “smartest guy in the room”. Peter Lee provides an interesting insight on Carter in a recent blog-post at China Matters. He says:
“…assertive Ash Carter is not playing bad cop to Obama/Kerry’s good cop; he’s the whole show, which will delight fans of military control of foreign policy everywhere.”
We’re glad that others are beginning to see that the Pentagon has taken over US foreign policy. Carter is clearly calling the shots in Asia and Europe.
Lee seems to believe that Carter will outlast Obama’s time in office if Madame Clinton is elected president. Which is not surprising, since it was Clinton who first introduced “pivot” to the strategic lexicon in a speech she gave in 2010 titled “America’s Pacific Century”. Clinton’s presentation laid out the basic themes that would later become America’s “top priority”, the rebalancing of US power to the Asia Pacific. Here’s an excerpt from the speech that appeared in Foreign Policy magazine:
“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…
Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…
The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.” (“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
Repeat: “Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests…. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia.”
There it is in a nutshell. Having reduced the great American middle class to a lifeless, rotting corpse incapable of sustaining even meager demand or growth, US elites are packing the boats and heading for China, the shining corporate Valhalla on the hill. Clinton seems to think it should be pretty easy to penetrate these bustling Asian markets provided we back up our crackbrain aspirations with a strong dose of gunboat diplomacy–which is where Boss-man Carter comes in.
It’s worth noting that Clinton did not conjure up the pivot on her own, but was briefed on the theory by pivot mastermind Kurt M. Campbell. Campbell is Co-Founder and former CEO of the Center for a New American Security. According to the Center for a New American Security website: “From 2009 to 2013, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he is widely credited as being a key architect of the “pivot to Asia.” In this capacity, Dr. Campbell advanced a comprehensive U.S. strategy that took him to every corner of the Asia-Pacific region where he was a tireless advocate for American interests, particularly the promotion of trade and investment.”
In a recent video interview with neocon Robert Kagan, Campbell regurgitates the same rhetoric that appears in Clinton’s speech. He opines: “Most of the history of the 21 century is going to be in the Asia Pacific region….It is in our best national interest to show that we are going to play a central role in that drama just as we have in the 20th century….(There is bipartisan)… recognition that our military presence is our ticket to the big game in the Asia Pacific.” (See entire interview here.)
There seems to be a growing consensus that the US military is the right tool for persuading China to cave in, but is it?
The last thing the Obama administration wants is a shooting war with China, mainly because China has the ability to strike back, and not just militarily either. Let me explain: According to political scientist Pang Zhongying, “The current relationship between China and the US is one that has never existed in the history of international relations…..The level of interdependence between China and the US is unprecedented in history. Before the 1970s, no one could possibly imagine or predict that these two countries would be interdependent to the extent of today. At that time, interdependence existed only between the US and Europe, or among the G7 at the most. The level of interdependence today did not exist between the US and China.”
In other words, the two countries need each other and are bound together in a complex web of economic and financial ties, including China’s massive holding of US debt which amounts to an eyewatering $1.3 trillion. This interdependence means that the US cannot abuse China in the same way it has Russia without putting itself at risk. So, while the US still maintains the dominant position economically and militarily, it can’t simply throw caution to the wind by imposing sanctions or escalating hostilities beyond a certain point without jeopardizing its own security. China knows this, which is why it will continue to pursue its own agenda aggressively while deflecting US belligerence and hostility as best as it can.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is still committed to “peaceful development”. US antagonism is just one of the many hurtles that China will have to overcome to actualize its plan for integrating the Eurasian landmass into the world’s largest and most prosperous trading bloc. Check out this excerpt from Alfred McCoy’s seminal piece “The Geopolitics of American Global Decline”:
“China’s leadership began collaborating with surrounding states on a massive project to integrate the country’s national rail network into a transcontinental grid. Starting in 2008, the Germans and Russians joined with the Chinese in launching the “Eurasian Land Bridge.” Two east-west routes, the old Trans-Siberian in the north and a new southern route along the ancient Silk Road through Kazakhstan are meant to bind all of Eurasia together….
In April, President Xi Jinping announced construction of that massive road-rail-pipeline corridor direct from western China to its new port at Gwadar, Pakistan, creating the logistics for future naval deployments in the energy-rich Arabian Sea….. By building the infrastructure for military bases in the South China and Arabian seas, Beijing is forging the future capacity to surgically and strategically impair U.S. military containment. …
In a decade or two….China will be ready to surgically slice through Washington’s continental encirclement at a few strategic points without having to confront the full global might of the U.S. military, potentially rendering the vast American armada of carriers, cruisers, drones, fighters, and submarines redundant….. If China succeeds in linking its rising industries to the vast natural resources of the Eurasian heartland, then quite possibly…. “the empire of the world would be in sight.” (“The Geopolitics of American Global Decline”, Alfred McCoy, The Unz Review)
There it is, eh? The end of one empire and the beginning of another.
China’s leaders aren’t going to blow their big chance by getting sucked into a costly and pointless war with the United States. That’s ridiculous. They’re going to keep plugging away until the Silk Road becomes a reality.
“Hasn’t US belligerence toward Russia – particularly on the Ukrainian situation – given rise to closer Sino-Russian cooperation to counter the US?,” Harry Colin asked in response to my latest article. My answer is a heavily qualified “yes.” Russia and China have upgraded their strategic partnership over the past year and a half, but they are very far from forging a strategic alliance deliberately aimed at countering Washington’s global-hegemonistic designs.
On the basis of my six visits to Moscow in 2014-15, I can aver that some influential Russians’ expectations of their recent pivot to Asia far exceed China’s readiness – at this stage, anyway – to confront the hegemonistic power in a coordinated, grand-strategic manner. To put it simply, Moscow’s prevailing image of China as a natural ally – on the account of Russia’s willingness and ability to confront what it perceives as a drastic geopolitical encroachment on its vulnerable southeastern flank – does not necessarily fit in with China’s own calculus and long-term strategy. There is a deep imbalance in the two countries’ perceptions of each others’ commitment to a joint geopolitical project, and there is an even greater discrepancy in their economic and hence political interests.
At under $100bn two-way total last year, Russia was China’s tenth trade partner (well below the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, even Malaysia), accounting for a mere two percent of China’s foreign trade turnover. By contrast, China is Russia’s top trading partner – and Russia exports almost nothing other than oil, gas and timber to the People’s Republic. Their long-term energy partnership, embodied in the 30-year gas agreement signed during Vladimir Putin’s visit to Beijing in May 2014, will represent only a fraction of China’s foreign trade on annual basis. Even if the bilateral total is increased to $200bn by 2020, as envisaged in the trade agreement signed in Moscow last October, that will still be barely equal to the value of the value of China’s trade with its estranged province of Taiwan (population 23 million) in 2014. Currently China exports to Russia 66 times more machinery, equipment and processed goods than she imports from Russia. The list goes on… The relative power of Russia and China have been spectacularly reversed over the past quarter-century.
Metahistorically speaking, Russia was far more deeply wounded by the communist tragedy than China. Russia has lost the ability to think and plan grand-strategically, as evidenced by her largely reactive posture over Ukraine and by her utter failure to project anything resembling soft power abroad. China, by contrast, is as much the Middle Kingdom now as she has been for two and a half millennia, coldly contemptuous of the Wilsonian notions of a converging world. Russia responds, often clumsily, to immediate threats, real and perceived, while China plans for the long term, methodically and single-mindedly.
There is no natural affinity between their civilizations and their peoples. China does not forget the fact that Russia was a full-fledged participant in her 19th century humiliation by the Western powers. In the 19th century Russia annexed her Far Eastern region (the Amur basin, Vladivostok to Khabarovsk), and dominated Manchuria until the disastrous war with Japan in 1904-5. The ideological schism of the early 1960’s was but a veneer for deeper historical grievances.
China’s current muscle-flexing in the South China Sea is a carefully calculated ploy to achieve geopolitical advantage at little or no cost, especially in terms of a determined American response, above all regarding commerce. Beijing expects business to continue as usual, and Beijing is right. Lenin’s dictum (“the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them”) comes to mind.
Of course the Chinese leadership does expect a major confrontation with the U.S. in the fulness of time, but they are far from ready for it now. Overall, China has it made in terms of global trade flows and financial solidity, and she is harnessing her resources for the great showdown some time later this century. Russia’s needs in this respect are immediate, but Beijing thinks it is far too early in the day to up the ante. My considered verdict is that China will stay aloof to Russia’s optimistic rhetoric, while paying polite lip-service to the two powers’ decade-long strategic partnership. When it comes to America’s global interests, of course in the long term China is far more perilous to the putative pax Americana than Russia has ever been.
The Skirmish in the Spratlys…
“Washington is not looking for peace or war. They’re looking for domination. If they can achieve domination peacefully – that’s fine. If they can’t, they’ll use war. It’s that simple.”
— William Blum, Interview with Russia Today
“The U.S. is frantically surrounding China with military weapons, advanced aircraft, naval fleets and a multitude of military bases from Japan, South Korea and the Philippines through several nearby smaller Pacific islands to its new and enlarged base in Australia…. The U.S. naval fleet, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines patrol China’s nearby waters. Warplanes, surveillance planes, drones and spying satellites cover the skies, creating a symbolic darkness at noon.”
— Jack A. Smith, “Hegemony Games: USA vs. PRC”, CounterPunch
The vast build up of military assets in the Asia-Pacific signals a fundamental change in U.S. policy towards China. Washington no longer believes that China can be integrated into the existing US-led system. Recent actions taken by China– particularly the announcement that it planned to launch an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) that would compete head-to-head with the World Bank and IMF— have set off alarms in the Capital where behind-the-scenes powerbrokers and think tank pundits agree that a more “robust” policy is needed to slow China’s ascendency. The current confrontation in the South China Sea–where the US has demanded that China immediately cease all land reclamation activities–indicates that the new policy has already been activated increasing the prospects of a conflagration between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.
There’s no need to go over the details of China’s land reclamation activities in the Spratly Islands since reasonable people can agree that Washington has no real interest in a few piles of sand heaped up on reefs 10,000 miles from the United States. The man-made islands pose no threat to US national security or to freedom of navigation. The Obama administration is merely using the Spratlys as a pretext to provoke, intimidate and harass Beijing. The Spratly’s provide a justification for escalation, for building an anti-China coalition among US allies in the region, for demonizing China in the media, for taking steps to disrupt China’s ambitious Silk Roads economic strategy, and for encircling China to the West with US warships that threaten China’s access to critical shipping lanes and vital energy supplies. This is the ultimate objective; to bring China to its knees and to force it to comply with Washington’s diktats. This is what Washington really wants.
In a recent speech at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said that “there is no military solution to the South China Sea disputes.” Just moments later, and without a trace of irony, Carter rattled off a long list of military assets the Pentagon plans to deploy to the Asia-Pacific to shore up US offensive capability. The list includes “the latest Virginia-class [nuclear] submarines, the Navy’s P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft, the newest stealth destroyer, the Zumwalt, and brand-new carrier-based E-2D Hawkeye early-warning-and-control aircraft.” The Pentagon is also going to add “new unmanned systems for the air and sea, a new long-range bomber, (an) electromagnetic railgun, lasers, and new systems for space and cyberspace, including a few surprising ones.”
For someone who doesn’t believe in a military solution, Carter is certainly adding a lot of lethal hardware to his arsenal. The question is: Why? Is Washington preparing for war?
Probably not. The United States does not want a war with China. What Washington wants is to be the dominant player in this century’s most promising and prosperous market, Asia. But China’s meteoric growth has put Washington’s plan at risk, which is why Obama is wheeling out the heavy artillery. The anti-China coalition, the China-excluding trade agreements (TPP) and the unprecedented military build up are all aimed at preserving Washington’s dominant role without actually starting a war. The administration thinks that the show of force alone will precipitate a change in behavior. They think China will back down rather than face the awesome military power of the American empire. But will it? Here’s another clip from Carter’s speech at Shangri La:
The United States will continue to protect freedom of navigation and overflight – principles that have ensured security and prosperity in this region for decades. There should be no mistake: the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as U.S. forces do all around the world.
America, alongside its allies and partners in the regional architecture, will not be deterred from exercising these rights – the rights of all nations. After all, turning an underwater rock into an airfield simply does not afford the rights of sovereignty or permit restrictions on international air or maritime transit.
Who is Carter kidding? China poses no threat to freedom of navigation or overflight. The real threat is China’s participation in the $100 billion BRICS Development Bank which is set to finance some of the “largest projects of the modern history (including) the construction of new Eurasian infrastructure from Moscow to Vladivostok, in South China and India.” The so called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) “represent 56% of world economic output, and account for 85% of world population. They control about 70% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves. They grow annually by an average of 4% —5%.” (Sputnik News) In other words, US-backed institutions are going to lose their exalted role as “underwriter for the global economy” because the world’s biggest infrastructure projects are going to be funded by China and its allies. Naturally, this doesn’t sit well with Washington where policy bigwigs are worried that US influence will gradually erode as global power inevitably shifts eastward.
US hegemony is also threatened by China’s Sino-centric economic policy which author Robert Berke sums up in an article on Oil Price.com titled “New Silk Road Could Change Global Economics Forever”. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
China is building the world’s greatest economic development and construction project ever undertaken: The New Silk Road. The project aims at no less than a revolutionary change in the economic map of the world…The ambitious vision is to resurrect the ancient Silk Road as a modern transit, trade, and economic corridor that runs from Shanghai to Berlin. The ‘Road’ will traverse China, Mongolia, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany, extending more than 8,000 miles, creating an economic zone that extends over one third the circumference of the earth.
The plan envisions building high-speed railroads, roads and highways, energy transmission and distributions networks, and fiber optic networks. Cities and ports along the route will be targeted for economic development.
An equally essential part of the plan is a sea-based “Maritime Silk Road” (MSR) component, as ambitious as its land-based project, linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea through Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. When completed, like the ancient Silk Road, it will connect three continents: Asia, Europe, and Africa. The chain of infrastructure projects will create the world’s largest economic corridor, covering a population of 4.4 billion and an economic output of $21 trillion…
For the world at large, its decisions about the Road are nothing less than momentous. The massive project holds the potential for a new renaissance in commerce, industry, discovery, thought, invention, and culture that could well rival the original Silk Road. It is also becoming clearer by the day that geopolitical conflicts over the project could lead to a new cold war between East and West for dominance in Eurasia. The outcome is far from certain. (“New Silk Road Could Change Global Economics Forever”, Robert Berke, Oil Price)
China is perfectly situated to take advantage of Asia’s explosive growth. They’ve paid their dues, built up their infrastructure and industrial capability, and now they’re in the catbird seat fully prepared to benefit from the fact that “Half of humanity will live in Asia by 2050″ and that “more than half of the global middle class and its accompanying consumption will come from that region.” US corporations will be welcome to compete in these new markets, but they won’t do nearly as well as businesses located in China. (This is why the Pentagon has been asked to intervene by powerful members of the corporate establishment.)
Washington’s gambit in the Spratly’s is an attempt to reverse the tide, derail China’s current trajectory and insert the US as the regional kingpin who writes the rules and picks the winners. As Sec-Def Carter said in an earlier speech at the McCain Institute in Arizona, “There are already more than 525 million middle class consumers in Asia, and there will be 3.2 billion in the region by 2030.” US corporations want the lion’s-share of those customers so they can peddle their widgets, goose their stock prices and pump up their quarterly profits. Carter’s job is to help them achieve that objective.
Another threat to US global rule is the aforementioned Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The danger of the AIIB is not simply that it will fund many of the infrastructure projects that will be needed to integrate Europe, Asia and Africa into one giant free trade zone, but that the bank will replace key US-backed financial institutions (The IMF and World Bank) which have helped maintain Washington’s iron-grip on the global system. As that grip progressively loosens, there will be less need for cross-border transactions to be carried out in US dollars which, in turn, will threaten the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. As author Bart Gruzalski notes in his excellent article at Counterpunch, “China and Russia are creating alternatives that threaten the dollar’s status as the sole dominant international currency. By instituting trade alternatives to the dollar, they challenge the value of the dollar and so threaten the US economy.” (“An Economic Reason for the US vs. China Conflict”, Bart Gruzalski, CounterPunch)
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers offered a particularly bleak assessment of the AIIB flap in an editorial that appeared in April in the Washington Post. He said:
This past month may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system. True, there have been any number of periods of frustration for the United States before and multiple times when U.S. behavior was hardly multilateralist, such as the 1971 Nixon shock ending the convertibility of the dollar into gold. But I can think of no event since Bretton Woods comparable to the combination of China’s effort to establish a major new institution and the failure of the United States to persuade dozens of its traditional allies, starting with Britain, to stay out. (Washington Post)
Summers goes on to acknowledge the threat that political dysfunction (on Capitol Hill) poses to “the dollar’s primary role in the international system”. It’s clear that Summers grasps the gravity of what has unfolded and the challenge the AIIB poses to US hegemony. Readers should note that Summers ominous warnings were delivered just months before Washington dramatically revamped its China policy which suggests that the announcement of the AIIB was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Shortly after, the Obama administration made “crucial changes” to the existing policy. Containment and integration were replaced with the current policy of intimidation, incitement and confrontation. Beijing was elevated to Public Enemy Number 1, America’s primary strategic rival.
What happens next, should be fairly obvious to anyone who has followed US meddling in recent years. The US is now at war with China, which means that it will use all of its resources and capabilities, except it’s military assets, to defeat the enemy. The United States will not militarily engage an enemy that can fight back or inflict pain on the US. That’s the cardinal rule of US military policy. While that precludes a nuclear conflagration, it does not exclude a hyperbolic propaganda campaign demonizing China and its leaders in the media (Sadly, the comparisons to Hitler and the Kaiser have already started), asymmetrical attacks on Chinese markets and currency, excruciating economic sanctions, US-NGO funding for Chinese dissidents, foreign agents and fifth columnists, intrusions into China’s territorial waters and airspace, strategic denial of critical energy supplies, (80 percent of China’s oil supplies are delivered via the Malacca Strait to the South China Sea) and, finally, covert support for “moderate” jihadis who are committed to toppling the Chinese government and replacing it with an Islamic Caliphate. All of these means and proxies will be employed to defeat Beijing, to derail its ambitious Silk Roads strategy, to curtail its explosive growth, and to sabotage its plan to be the preeminent power in Asia.
Washington has thrown down the gauntlet in the South China Sea. If Beijing wants to preserve its independence and surpass the US as the world’s biggest economy, it’s going to have to meet the challenge, prepare for a long struggle, and beat Uncle Sam at his own game.
It won’t be easy, but it can be done.
The South China Sea (SCS) is fast becoming one of the key geopolitical battlegrounds of our time. China’s systematic, rapid and large-scale island-building campaign has suddenly altered the strategic equation in “Asia’s Mediterranean.” It has also presented Washington with a long-term strategic dilemma in the Western Pacific.
There are literally dozens of disputed islands, atolls, submerged banks, reefs, rocks and shoals in the SCS. Incompatible territorial claims involving China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines have been the subject of legal wrangling and rhetorical bickering for years. In recent months China has suddenly upped the ante with its Spratly Island building expansion on the Johnson, Cuarteron, and Gaven reefs. Over Fiery Cross Reef and, more recently, Mischief Reef, fleets of dozens of dredgers have been continually sucking sand off the bottom of the sea and blowing it in huge plumes to create new land above the surface, while simultaneously digging deep harbors. What used to be reefs barely visible above the waves are now massive building projects which already house permanent air and naval facilities. Since early last year China has expanded these islands by 2,000 acres – and the work of its engineering teams appears to be far from over. Future likely flashpoints are the Scarborough Shoals (claimed by Philippines and China), and the Paracel Islands, already occupied by China but still claimed by Vietnam.
For China, asserting control over the disputed zone is seen as a near-existential issue. The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) estimates that the South China Sea currently accounts for as much as one tenth of global fish catches. China will have no more than 20 percent of the world’s population by 2030, but she will account for 38 percent of global fish consumption by that time. Energy-hungry China is also hoping to exploit massive likely deposits of oil and gas below the SCS surface, if and when its fait accompli is accepted as irreversible.
The series of man-made islands and the massive Chinese military build-up on them have alarmed Washington, with the U.S. Navy carrying out P8-A Poseidon surveillance flights over the new islands. Ten days ago former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told CNN’s Erin Burnett Wednesday night that the confrontation indicates there is “absolutely” a risk of the U.S. and China going to war sometime in the future. “China is a rising power. We’re a status quo power. We’re the big dog on the block . . . They want more influence,” Morell said. “Are we going to move a little bit? Are they going to push? How is that dance going to work out? This is a significant issue for the next President of the United States.”
It is indeed. The challenge that the rise of China presents to the United States global strategy ascurrently concieved is more pressing than any other global issue except for the ever-present threat ofjihad. Beijing is rapidly becoming a regional power of the first order, the potential Asian hegemon that will need to be contained and confronted, or in some way appeased. Its ruling party still calls itself “communist,” but the ethos of the nomenklatura is eminently traditional: nationalist, xenophobic, and authoritarian. The sacro egoismo has been China’s guiding light in foreign affairs for over two millennia.
With the demise of Maoism, Han nationalism is the only ideological cement that binds the nation under CPC rule, granting it legitimacy. Nurtured by the collective memory of humiliations, invasions and massacres that started with the First Opium War in 1839, it is a potent force. Taiwan epitomizes the legacy of past shame. She was taken by force by Japan and ruled as a colony for 50 years (1895-1945). To condone her separation, under whatever name, would be tantamount to accepting the status of a second-class power. Furthermore, a soft line on Taiwan would have serious implications for the future status of Tibet and – even more significantly – for the restive Muslim-populated Sinkiang-Uigur province in the far west of the country.
The choice facing the United States is fairly clear. China is an ancient power, studiedly contemptuous of outsiders, steeped in Realpolitik. If she is to be treated as a rival and potential enemy, it is necessary to halt further American investment in the Chinese economy, to reverse massive outsourcing of the past quarter-century, and to erect effective trade barriers against the continuing deluge of Chinese-made consumer products in American stores. It is also necessary to improve defense capabilities of China’s regional foes – from Japan and South Korea in the north to the Philippines and (yes) Vietnam in the south – who are not necessarily on friendly terms with each other. The geopolitical equation of containing and confronting China also demands an alliance, informal or otherwise, between the United States and India, which is, in the long term, China’s sole natural rival in Asia.
If the list is unappetizing or even impossible to fulfill (India), then the alternative is to accept the rise of China as a first-order power, and to do so with the best possible grace. Exactly ten years ago I wrote in these pages that “a reigning power is naturally disinclined to look on benignly as another rises, but the middle road would be based on the notion that a conflict between America and China is not inevitable. The relationship will need to be managed skillfully – with more reciprocity in the field of trade and exchange rates – but its essential ingredient will be to accept that Taiwan is part of China and that she will eventually be reintegrated . . . ”
The diagnosis still stands, and China is in no hurry. She is the fastest growing among the world’s major economies; per capita basis, her growth over the past two decades was the highest in the world. That Western-style political liberties have not kept pace with China’s increasing economic freedom is true but irrelevant. A decade from now she will be a great power of the first order. In foreign affairs, her leaders will continue to trust China’s wealth and power as a means of achieving diplomatic objectives and treating a strong defense as an outgrowth of a strong economy.
The current tension in the SCS notwithstanding, countries of the region will be hard pressed to negotiate the terms and conditions of an acceptable relationship with Beijing that would fall short of China’s outright hegemony. At the same time, it is self-defeating for the U.S. to assume that anychange of the status quo in Asia is detrimental to American interests. As China continues to transform herself into a global economic power, her interests, security concerns, and aspirations will be asserted with ever-greater self-confidence. The task of U.S. policy in East and Southeast Asia should be to consider whether, and to what extent, those aspirations are compatible with American interests and security. Ultimately the American interest demands a pragmatic acceptance of the emerging redistribution of power in Asia, and – on the global scale – policies that will seek to manage, rather than resist, the emerging multipolar structure.
Their precious young minds and our precious young minds…
She was a redheaded rebel, the singer in the family, a trash-talking, tattooed 21-year-old wrapped up in a hip-hop dream of becoming Holland’s Eminem. Then Betsy found Allah. After her sudden conversion to Islam last summer, Betsy began dressing in full Muslim robes. By January, the once-agnostic Dutch woman, raised in a home where the only sign of religion was a dusty Bible on a shelf, began defending homegrown terrorists. … Denis Cuspert, a German hip-hop artist known as Deso Dogg who converted in 2010 and later joined The Islamic State [ISIS], delivers a rap-like chant portraying the path to jihad as a chance for empowerment, spiritual fulfillment, vengeance and adventure. … ‘The door to jihad is standing there waiting for you,’ says a Swedish convert to Islam in a video. ‘It is the fastest way to paradise.’ (1)
Tales told many times in recent years, all over Europe, at times in the United States. Parents and authorities are deeply distressed and perplexed. How can young people raised in the West – the freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled West – join the Islamic State and support the public cutting off of the heads of breathing, living human beings? Each of us in our own way are lost souls searching for answers to the awful mysteries of life. But THIS? What life-quest does The Islamic State satisfy that our beloved West can’t satisfy? ISIS is unique in the world in making US foreign policy look good. The Defense Department and the State Department have special task forces studying the new enemy; the latter regularly puts out videos to counteract the many Islamic State videos.
I hope those researching the question look inwardly as well as at ISIS. How do young people raised in the West – the same West we know and love – coldly machine-gun to death more than a dozen Iraqis, men, women, children, reporters, absolutely in cold blood, in the video made famous by Chelsea Manning; but this of course is nothing compared to Fallujah with its two-headed babies, even three-headed, an eye in the middle of the forehead. The Islamic State has done nothing compared to what the United States did to the people of Fallujah. Can anyone name a horror in all of history more gruesome? Yes, there are some, but not many; and much of Fallujah was personally executed by nice, clean-cut, freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled made-in America young men.
Here’s US Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, in his memoir, April 6, 2004, the time of Fallujah, in video teleconference with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “We’ve got to smash somebody’s ass quickly,” said Powell. “There has to be a total victory somewhere. We must have a brute demonstration of power.” Then Bush spoke: “At the end of this campaign al-Sadr must be gone. At a minimum, he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out. Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal. … There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!” (2)
“Years from now when America looks out on a democratic Middle East, growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima” in World War II. – George W. Bush, 2006 (3)
Well, George, it’s either that or Fallujah was one of the key reasons for the rise of ISIS.
My point here is not that United States foreign policy is as barbaric and depraved as The Islamic State. It’s not. Most of the time. I simply hope to make it a bit easier to understand the enemy by seeing ourselves without the stars in our eyes. And I haven’t even mentioned what the United States has led the world in for over a century – torture.
The ever-fascinating and ever-revealing subject of ideology
Jeb Bush has gotten himself into trouble because, like all politicians running for office, he is unable to give simple honest answers to simple straightforward questions, for fear of offending one or another segment of the population. How refreshing it would be to have a politician say only what s/he actually believes, even if it’s as stupid as usual.
The brother of the previous president has been asked repeatedly: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” At first his answer was “yes”, then at times “I don’t know”, even “no” at least once, or he’s refused to answer at all. Clearly he’s been guessing about which reply would win him points with the most people, or which would lose him the least.
This caused a minor uproar, even among conservatives. Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham was moved to make a rare rational remark: “You can’t still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you.”
Such discussions always leave out a critical point. Why did millions of Americans, and even more millions abroad, march against the war in the fall of 2002 and early 2003, before it began? What did they know that the Bush brothers and countless other politicians didn’t know? It was clear to the protesters that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were habitual liars, that they couldn’t care less about the people of Iraq, that the defenseless people of that ancient civilization were going to be bombed to hell; most of the protesters knew something about the bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan; and they knew about napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, etc. Those who marched knew that the impending war was something a moral person could not support; and that it was totally illegal, a textbook case of a “war of aggression”; one didn’t have to be an expert in international law to know this.
Didn’t the Brothers Bush, Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war in the Senate), et al know about any of these things? Of course they did. They just didn’t care enough; supporting the empire’s domination and expansion was a given, and remains so; no US politician gets very far – certainly not to the White House – questioning the right of American Exceptionalism to impose itself upon humanity (for humanity’s sake of course).
Consider the darlings du jour of the American Left, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They very seldom speak out critically about US foreign policy or even the military budget. The anti-war/anti-imperialist segment of the American left need to put proper pressure on the two senators.
Mr. Sanders should also be asked why he routinely refers to himself as a “democratic socialist”. Why not just “socialist”? It’s likely a legacy of the Cold War. I think that he and other political figures who use the term are, consciously or unconsciously, trying to disassociate themselves from communism, the Soviet Union, Marxism, etc., all those things that are not good for you. (The word “socialist” once connoted furtive men with European accents, sinister facial hair, and bombs.)
It would be delightful to hear Sanders openly declare that he is simply a “socialist”. Socialism can be democratic; indeed, a lot more so than capitalism, particularly concerning the distribution of wealth and all the ramifications of that. Presented here are some relevant thoughts on these issues, from myself and others:
It’s only the socialists who maintain as a bedrock principle: People before Profit, which can serve as a very concise definition of socialism, an ideology anathema to the Right and libertarians, who fervently believe, against all evidence, in the rationality of a free market. I personally favor the idea of a centralized, planned economy. (Oh my God, a damn Commie!) Modern society is much too complex and technical to leave its operation in the hands of libertarians, communitarians, or anarchists seeking to return to a “community” or “village” level.
“Washington has always regarded democratic socialism as a greater challenge than totalitarian Communism, which was easy to vilify and made for a handy enemy. In the 1960s and ’70s, the favored tactic for dealing with the inconvenient popularity of economic nationalism and democratic socialism was to try to equate them with Stalinism, deliberately blurring the clear differences between the world views.” – Naomi Klein
“If it is true, as often said, that most socialist regimes turn out to be dictatorships, that is largely because a dictatorship is much harder to overthrow or subvert than a democracy.” – Jean Bricmont, Belgian author of “Humanitarian Imperialism” (2006)
Without a proclaimed socialist vision, radical change becomes too many different things for too many different individuals and groups.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.” – Martin Luther King
The United States is so fearful of the word “socialism” that it changed the “social sciences” to the “behavioral sciences”.
If for no other reason than to save the environment, the world needs to abandon the capitalist system. Every day, in every spot on earth, in a multitude of ways, corporations are faced with a choice: to optimize profits or to do what’s best for the planet.
The great majority of people in any society work for a salary. They don’t need to be motivated by the profit motive. It’s not in anyone’s genes. Virtually everybody, if given the choice, would prefer to work at jobs where the main motivations are to help others, improve the quality of life of society, and provide themselves with meaningful and satisfying work. It’s not natural to be primarily motivated by trying to win or steal “customers” from other people, no holds barred, survival of the fittest or the least honest.
And what about this thing called “democracy”, or “majority rule”? Many millions marched against the invasion of Iraq before it began. I don’t know of a single soul who marched in favor of it, although I’m sure there must have been someone somewhere. That lucky soul was the one they listened to.
Finally, the question being asked of Jeb Bush and others is not the best one. They’re asked: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” A more important question would be: “Knowing what we knew then, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” And the answer should be “no”, because we knew that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. This is very well documented, from diverse sources, international and Iraqi, including Saddam himself and his chief lieutenants.
The American Mainstream Media – A Classic Tale Of Propaganda
“When an American warplane accidentally struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign …”
These words appeared in the Washington Post on April 24, 2015 as part of a story about US drone warfare and how an American drone attack in Pakistan in January had accidentally killed two Western aid workers. The Post felt no need to document the Belgrade incident, or explain it any further. Almost anyone who follows international news halfway seriously knows about this famous “accident” of May 7, 1999. The only problem is that the story is pure propaganda.
Three people inside the Chinese embassy were killed and Washington apologized profusely to Beijing, blaming outdated maps among other problems. However, two well-documented and very convincing reports in The Observer of London in October and November of that year, based on NATO and US military and intelligence sources, revealed that the embassy had been purposely targeted after NATO discovered that it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. The Chinese were doing this after NATO planes had successfully silenced the Yugoslav government’s own transmitters. (5) The story of how the US mainstream media covered up the real story behind the embassy bombing is absolutely embarrassing. (6)
Over and above the military need, there may have been a political purpose served. China, then as now, was clearly the principal barrier to US hegemony in Asia, if not elsewhere. The bombing of the embassy was perhaps Washington’s charming way of telling Beijing that this is only a small sample of what can happen to you if you have any ideas of resisting or competing with the American juggernaut. Since an American bombing campaign over Belgrade was already being carried out, Washington was able to have a much better than usual “plausible denial” for the embassy bombing. The opportunity may have been irresistible to American leaders. The chance might never come again.
All of US/NATO’s other bombing “mistakes” in Yugoslavia were typically followed by their spokesman telling the world: “We regret the loss of life.” These same words were used by the IRA in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions over the years following one of their bombings which appeared to have struck the wrong target. But their actions were invariably called “terrorist”.
Undoubtedly, the US media will be writing of the “accidental” American bombing of the Chinese embassy as long as the empire exists and China does not become a member of NATO.
1) Washington Post, May 7, 2015
2) Ricardo Sanchez, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story (2008), pages 349-350
3) Associated Press, November 11, 2006
4) William Blum, America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, pp. 61-2
5) The Observer (London), October 17, 1999 (“Nato bombed Chinese deliberately”), and November 28, 1999 (“Truth behind America’s raid on Belgrade”)
6) Extra! Update (magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR], New York), December 1999; appeared first as solitary article October 22, 1999 (“U.S. Media Overlook Expose on Chinese Embassy Bombing”)
US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is willing to risk a war with China in order to defend “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea. Speaking in Honolulu, Hawaii on Wednesday, Carter issued his “most forceful” warning yet, demanding “an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation” by China in the disputed Spratly Islands.
Carter said: “There should be no mistake: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world.” He also added that the United States intended to remain “the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.”
In order to show Chinese leaders “who’s the boss”, Carter has threatened to deploy US warships and surveillance aircraft to within twelve miles of the islands that China claims are within their territorial waters. Not surprisingly, the US is challenging China under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a document the US has stubbornly refused to ratify. But that’s neither here nor there for the bellicose Carter whose insatiable appetite for confrontation makes him the most reckless Sec-Def since Donald Rumsfeld.
So what’s this really all about? Why does Washington care so much about a couple hundred yards of sand piled up on reefs reefs in the South China Sea? What danger does that pose to US national security? And, haven’t Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all engaged in similar “land reclamation” activities without raising hackles in DC?
Of course, they have. The whole thing is a joke. Just like Carter’s claim that he’s defending the lofty principal of “freedom of navigation” is a joke. China has never blocked shipping lanes or seized boats sailing in international waters. Never. The same cannot be said of the United States that just recently blocked an Iranian ship loaded with humanitarian relief–food, water and critical medical supplies–headed to starving refugees in Yemen. Of course, when the US does it, it’s okay.
The point is, Washington doesn’t give a hoot about the Spratly Islands; it’s just a pretext to slap China around and show them who’s running the show in their own backyard. Carter even admits as much in his statement above when he says that the US plans to be “the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.” China knows what that means. It means “This is our planet, so you’d better shape up or you’re going to find yourself in a world of hurt.” That’s exactly what it means.
So let’s cut to the chase and try to explain what’s really going on, because pretty soon no one is going to be talking about Ukraine, Syria or Yemen because all eyes are going to be focused on China where our madhatter Secretary of Defense is trying to start a third world war.
Here’s the scoop: Washington has abandoned its China policy of “containment” and moved on to Plan B: Isolation, intimidation and confrontation. In my opinion, this is why the powerbrokers behind Obama dumped Hagel. Hagel just wasn’t hawkish enough for the job. They wanted a died-in-the-wool, warmongering neocon, like Carter, who is, quite likely, the most dangerous man in the world.
Carter’s assignment is to implement the belligerent new policy of incitement and conflict. His actions will prove to the skeptics that Washington is no longer interested in integrating China into the US-led system. Rather, China has become a the biggest threat to Washington’s plan to pivot to Asia. And, just to remind readers how important the pivot is to America’s future, here’s an Obama quote I lifted up from Tom Engelhardt’s latest titled “Superpower in Distress”:
“After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region….As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.”
The so called pivot is Washington’s “top priority”, which means that China’s unprecedented ascendency must be slowed and its regional influence curtailed. Thus, the dust up over the Spratly Islands will be used in the same way the US has used other incidents, that is, by demonizing China’s leaders in the media, by assembling a coalition that will publicly oppose China’s activities, by implementing harsh economic sanctions, by launching asymmetrical attacks on China’s currency and financial markets, by excluding China from critical trade agreements, and by inciting social unrest (color-coded revolution) through the support of dissidents living in China. These are the all-too-familiar signs of US meddling directed at “emerging rivals” who threaten US global hegemony. China now finds itself at the top of the list.
US powerbrokers know that bullying China involves significant risks for themselves and the world. Even so, they have decided to pursue this new policy and force a confrontation. Why? Why would they embark on a strategy so fraught with danger?
The answer is: They don’t see any way around it. They’ve tried containment and it hasn’t worked. China’s growing like crazy and its regional influence threatens to leave the US on the outside looking in. Carter even admitted as much in a recent speech he gave at the McCain Institute at Arizona State University. He said: “We already see countries in the region trying to carve up these markets…forging many separate trade agreements in recent years, some based on pressure and special arrangements…. Agreements that…..leave us on the sidelines. That risks America’s access to these growing markets. We must all decide if we are going to let that happen. If we’re going to help boost our exports and our economy…and cement our influence and leadership in the fastest-growing region in the world; or if, instead, we’re going to take ourselves out of the game.”
See? It’s all about markets. It’s all about money. Here’s more from Carter’s speech: (The) ” Asia-Pacific…is the defining region for our nation’s future”… “Half of humanity will live there by 2050″ and that “more than half of the global middle class and its accompanying consumption will come from that region.”….”There are already more than 525 million middle class consumers in Asia, and we expect there to be 3.2 billion in the region by 2030…President Obama and I want to ensure that… businesses can successfully compete for all these potential customers. ….Over the next century, no region will matter more… for American prosperity.”
This is why the Obama administration is making a general nuisance of itself in the South China Sea. It’s so the big US mega-corporations will have new customers for their IPADs and toaster ovens.
For that, they are willing to risk a nuclear war.
Can one imagine how difficult it was for America’s founders to actually make the decision to separate from Great Britain? England was the Motherland. The Crown was the central government. For all of their lives, the government of Great Britain was the only government they had ever known. The history of England was their history. Not only that, these men had never experienced any other system of government. Neither was there history to guide them. A monarchical form of government was all they knew. The “divine right of kings” was inculcated into their hearts and minds via virtually every established institution, including the Church, from the time they were born.
The Magna Carta had paved the highway of philosophy for the acceptance of self-government and individual liberty, but it was hardly practiced. King John signed the charter under extreme duress and then spent the rest of his reign in bloody retaliation against those who had pressed him to accept it. For over five hundred years, the Magna Carta lay as a noble idea but with little practical application. The Enlightenment philosophers wrote and theorized much about the principles contained in the Great Charter, but, again, until America’s founding generation came on the scene, nothing much of substance had been achieved. It was America’s Founding Fathers and founding generation that took the principles of the Magna Carta and the Enlightenment philosophers and actually used those principles to birth a new nation.
But how did they come to such a decision? Imagine the consternation. Imagine the inner conflicts. Communities were divided. Friends were divided. Families were divided. Brothers were divided. Parents and children and husbands and wives were divided. Yet, make the decision, they did. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause. They obtained liberty and independence for their posterity–at great cost.
Granted, the decision to separate from the British Crown was not made overnight. Thomas Jefferson explained the process of reasoning behind the separation in the Declaration of Independence. Hear him:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
How could Jefferson have been any clearer? He and the rest of America’s founders were convinced of “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”
Noah Webster’s Dictionary Of The English Language (1828) defines “design” as verb: “To project; to form in idea, as a scheme.” And as noun: “A scheme or plan in the mind.” And, “Purpose; intention; aim; implying a scheme or plan in the mind.”
Hence, America’s founders were convinced of a scheme, a plan, and an intention in the minds of those within the British Crown to “reduce them under absolute Despotism.” Yes, friends, America’s founders were convinced there was a CONSPIRACY within the hearts and minds of the British government to enslave them. Hear Jefferson again:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design…”
When abuses and usurpations which pursue invariably the “same Object” continue unabated over a long period of time, this is NOT an act of happenstance; it is by “design.” Somewhere along the line, the eyes of America’s founders were opened to the conspiracy within the British government to enslave them. Once their eyes were opened to the conspiracy, the rest, as we say, is history.
I submit that what we have in America today are basically two groups of people: those whose eyes are opened to conspiracy, and those who eyes are blind to conspiracy. This is exactly as it was in 1775 and 1776. Christian or unchurched, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, if one is blind to the conspiracy to “reduce [us] under absolute Despotism,” one cannot truly comprehend the real danger or the real war.
And, sadly, it appears that most people today do NOT see the CONSPIRACY. All they see is Republican and Democrat; conservative and liberal; right and left; Christian and Muslim; religious and secular; FOX News and CNN, etc. Until Americans awaken to the same “design” that our founders awakened to, they will not be able to obtain a solution to our country’s malaise, as they are blind to the real enemy.
Mind you, not everyone in the British government in 1775 had it in mind to enslave the Colonists. Not every British soldier, not every British magistrate, not every British agent had a personal goal to enslave the colonies. They were just following orders; their eyes were blind to the plans and objects of those who were orchestrating the conspiracy. And, of course, those within the colonies who supported the British Crown were, likewise, blind to the conspiracy. Thank God, enough of our forebears were enlightened to the design of the Crown to be willing to cast it off.
I will say it plainly: there is a design (conspiracy) within Washington, D.C., and its allies to reduce us under absolute despotism.
Come on, folks, think: when has it mattered to a tinker’s dam which party controlled the White House or Congress? No matter which party is in charge, the central government in D.C. continues to get bigger and bigger and more and more oppressive. Regardless of whether the President is a Democrat or Republican, NOTHING changes in regards to America’s foreign policies or our economic policies. Regardless of party, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) dominates our foreign policies and the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) dominates our economic policies. Regardless of party, an American Police State and surveillance society continue to mushroom, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) continue to exert more and more control over the American citizenry, and states and communities continue to fall under the heel of federal overreach.
Both parties in Washington, D.C., are led by warmongering zealots who use war, not only to enrich themselves, but also to carry out their preconceived plans of perpetual war for the purpose of paving the way for international bankers to control the world’s economies and for the purpose of subjecting the American citizenry to greater and greater infringements of their liberties.
In this regard, militant Islam is but a tool of the globalists. As long as Americans think that Islam is our enemy, they are blind to who the real enemy is. Our enemy is NOT Islam; our enemy is the cabal of globalists who are manipulating militant Islamists. The same people (the CFR and their fellow travelers) who took one of our strongest allies in the Middle East (Iran) and turned it into one our (supposed) greatest enemies are the same ones who are manipulating all of the wars of the Middle East, as well as bringing Russia and China to the brink of global conflict.
I submit the conspiracy of the British Crown has returned; and what used to be an indefatigable, recalcitrant, and vigilant independent republic (the United States) has become little more than a puppet of the old European monarchy. What the Crown could not accomplish through military force, it has accomplished through international banking.
The Federal Reserve wields absolute control over U.S. economic policy, and yet, no one really knows exactly who all of the members of the FRB even are. One thing is known, many (if not most) of them are NOT even U.S. citizens. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, foreign bankers have been controlling U.S. financial policy for the better part of a century.
In like fashion, the CFR virtually controls U.S. foreign policy. And the goal of the CFR is the reduction of national sovereignty and the rise of global government. Listen to Admiral Chester Ward.
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR, but withdrew from the organization after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common–they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”
Admiral Ward also said, “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all-powerful, one world government.”
Now, observe that the administrations of both Republican and Democrat presidents are littered with CFR members. Under President George H.W. Bush, CFR members comprised 20% of his cabinet; under President Bill Clinton, CFR members comprised 34% of his cabinet; under President G.W. Bush, CFR members comprised 22% of his cabinet; and under President Barack Obama, CFR members comprise 36% of his cabinet. And these figures do not take into account how many CFR members are scattered throughout the national news media.
Can one imagine how people would react if twenty or thirty percent of a given presidential administration’s cabinet members were from, say, the Christian Coalition–or, even the ACLU. If the Christian Coalition had that many members in a presidential administration, people on the left would be screaming bloody murder. And if the ACLU had that many members in a presidential administration, people on the right would be screaming bloody murder. As it is, the CFR DOES have that many members in EVERY presidential administration and no one from the right or the left even says “boo.” It’s because they (from both left and right) are blind to the conspiracy.
These international conspirators can be found in London, Brussels, Washington, D.C., New York City, Tel Aviv, etc. In terms of U.S. foreign policy, these conspirators completely control the neocon agenda. That doesn’t mean that every politician who embraces the neocon foreign policy agenda is him or herself aware of the conspiracy. In the same way, not every federal officer within the DHS is aware of the conspiracy. Not every soldier who is fighting these perpetual wars of aggression is aware of the conspiracy. But as with many in the old British monarchy, they are the pawns of the conspirators.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, et al., were only able to declare and fight for independence and liberty after they understood that they were dealing with “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”
Until the American people, including our State legislators, governors, city mayors, councilmen, county sheriffs, district attorneys, congressmen, senators, pastors, educators, journalists, etc., awaken to the conspiracy that seeks to enslave us, we will never have the sagacity and strength of will to properly resist it. This means that many of the current battles in which good people are engaged merely play into the designs of those who seek our enslavement. We can’t win the war until we know who the real enemy is.
P.S. On Sunday, April 19 of this year, I delivered the famous sermon of Pastor Jonas Clark that was originally delivered on April 19, 1776, on the occasion of the first anniversary of the Battle of Lexington. Pastor Clark was the pastor of the men who fought that historic battle, which began America’s War for Independence. Obviously, this message was delivered just a couple of months before our Declaration of Independence was signed. I preached this message word-for-word. And I tried to deliver it with the same zeal and passion in which it was originally preached.
The vast majority of today’s Christians NEVER hear a message that remotely resembles the kind of sermons that the pastors of Colonial America delivered. And since April 19 fell on Sunday this year, I delivered Jonas Clark’s powerful message regarding the Battle of Lexington and American liberty so people could listen to the kind of preaching that Christians in Colonial America heard routinely. Pastor Clark entitled his message, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.”
My delivery of this awesome message is on DVD. I offer this DVD to my readers in the hope that many of you will purchase copies of the DVD and let your friends, relatives, fellow Christians, pastor, etc., hear true Colonial American preaching. Again, this is word-for-word the message of Jonas Clark delivered on April 19, 1776, concerning the Battle of Lexington Green and America’s fight for liberty.
I have never heard anyone deliver Rev. Clark’s famous message. As far as I know, this is the only verbatim recording of this historic message in existence–preached with the same kind of passion and fervor as it was said Pastor Clark delivered it.
To order my delivery of Jonas Clark’s message, go here:
“The sand beneath our feet is saturate with blood of martyrs; and these rifted stones are awful witnesses against a people whose pleasure was the pain of dying men.” Cavalieri, in “Michael Angelo: A Fragment”, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
The Mayweather-Pacquiao fight is coming up and regardless of the result Mayweather will be millions of dollars richer than he is today. Tickets printed at prices of $1,500 to $7,500 and are being scalped in the six figure range. Mayweather recently voiced a typical Black attitude when he complained that his current net worth of $275 million would be in the billions if he was White. Read here. It is very difficult to please people who are void of gratitude.
America’s Black population has been primed for resentment for the past several decades. Slavery has been publicized with the same vigor as the Holocaust and has been used to indict succeeding generations for prejudices and actions they neither harbor nor approve.
Invariably missing in the racial dialogue is the inordinate statistical difference in the Black crime rate which is about 7 times higher than the White population. The American press never publishes the correct figures instead it presents the public with a destructive distortion.
For every Black killed by a White person 18 Whites are killed by Blacks. When the Black crime rate Is adjusted for population the figure 7 times higher rises to an astounding 50 times higher. Read here.
The Neocon owners of the American press and media seem devoted to inciting Black citizens to riot. See current unrest in Baltimore here. Their coverage is not only biased but blatantly fosters a view of the Black condition that is false. Pat Buchanan writes, “We are now half a century on from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. African Americans have risen out of poverty and the working class to become successes as actors, artists, athletes, executives, politicians, TV anchors, journalists, scholars, generals, authors, etc.”
In spite of the tyrannical legislation that mandated Black equality the Black race has steadily progressed. The progress is never recognized because the press and Black leaders falsely create the impression that prejudice is keeping then from realizing success.
Sadly, a larger portion of American Blacks remain convinced that the White population is their enemy. Instead of gratitude they harbor a feeling that killing or stealing from a White person is a badge of honor. As long as their leaders and the powerful American press cultivate this attitude peace will be impossible.
Society views Jewish Americans and Black Americans sympathetically as oppressed and suffering races – the Jews from the Holocaust and the Blacks from Slavery. Both of these archaic tragedies have been used to create sacrosanctity. This eminence makes honest discourse impossible and allows racial problems to fester. That this attitude has been created with ulterior motives by our press and media and power hungry Black and Jewish leaders does not alter reality. The hatred for American society is very real.
Blacks and Jews are pragmatic and they use their power despitefully against a system that has been their benefactor. Until truth begins to permeate the current scene personal threats and riots will be used to further bleed a benevolent system.
As America continues to digest the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and the current riots in Baltimore it is interesting to note that our nation has a history of violent behavior that goes back to the founding era!
In the mid-Seventeenth Century before the America Revolution, Britain claimed ownership of the colonies and the right to levy taxes ostensibly to cover the cost of protecting the colonies.
The right to tax was upheld by most of the members of Parliament and by some colonial leaders; but to the citizens, who had created civilization in the New World, taxation without representation was anathema.
There were strong feelings involved in this conflict. Colonial citizens wanted and thought they deserved some independence while in Britain the Parliament was affronted that their dominion was being challenged.
With help from a stirring oratory by young Patrick Henry an angry resistance developed against a British tax called the Stamp Act. Though the potential taxes collected under the act would probably have been insignificant the act of levying this tax created suspicions of tyranny that aroused freedom-loving citizens. British troops had been left in the colonies following the Seven Year War . and the presence of these troops contributed to as barrage of conspiracy theories that swept through the colonies.
According to Robert Middlekauff’s book “The Glorious Cause” fighting between factions in Massachusetts had already been vicious before the passage of the Stamp Act; “clubs, bricks, stones, and fists” were instruments of warfare. The new affront to their freedom solidified these mobs against the common enemy and put British agents in the colonies in danger. Andrew Oliver supposedly appointed as a Distributor of Stamps in Massachusetts was one of these men.
It was rumored that Oliver stood to profit from the Stamp Act this incensed the mob which created an image of Oliver and beheaded it in front of his house. They burned the beheaded image and proceeded to break all of the windows in the house. There was a call to find Oliver and kill him. They searched his house but he had already fled. Frustrated, they broke up his furniture. It turned out that Oliver’s appointment had not yet arrived from Britain and he promised to resign as soon as it did.
A few day later another British agent, Thomas Hutchinson, came under the ire of the mob. He was related to Oliver and was considered brave and proud. His house was big and luxurious. Seeking to humble him the mob patiently destroyed his beautiful home. Middlekauff writes, “Virtually everything moveable within was destroyed or stolen – papers, plate, furniture, clothing, and sterling – and what could not be moved – walls, partitions, and roof – were severely battered. The handsome cupola was cut off, a demolition that took three hours, and much of the slate roof was pulled down.” The wrecking crew worked until dawn and when they were finished a part of the roof and several brick walls were all that survived.
United States of America was founded by immigrants coming from tyrannical regimes in Europe. They found freedom in the new world. Freedom was the object of the great sacrifice necessary to travel to the new world. It was the ultimate jewel. The loss of freedom was fresh in the minds of these hardy people and when any sign of superiority reared its ugly head they were quick to react in violence.
Though the government was often dishonest with the Indian population it was the citizens themselves who often defied the proscribed borders and settled land that was designated for the Indians.
Policemen played a minor role in Colonial culture. This, coupled with an action oriented populace allowed frequent rioting. In his book “Rioting in America” Paul Gilje records a litany of colonial riots.
In 1677 a group of fishermen in Marblehead, Massachusetts captured two Indians they planned to barter for property the tribe had stolen from them while they fished off the shores of Maine. When they brought the Indians into Marblehead Indian hating housewives stoned them to death and cut off their heads.
War and violent behavior has been common to every civilization. When opposing perspectives meet each finds truth and justice in their view. Humanistic atheism has a perspective that conflicts with Theonomic Christianity. This battle is currently raging in the world
Human beings are maligned by sin. Sin causes us to make improper decisions and to react with anger when our ideas and plans are challenged. We really do not want to obey God, instead we want to be God and decide for ourselves what is right and wrong. Sin is ubiquitous; it can be seen in Christians as well as pagans. Sin leads to the creation of opposing religions and plants the seed for war and strife.
Our hope is in the progress of Christianity in the world; more and more people must view the world from a Christian perspective. When God brings in His harvest and Christians begin to obey Him by making His Law the basis for civil behavior the world will have a chance at peace. There are encouraging signs in China where a Christian revival is challenging the Communist government. Read here.
As the Twenty-First Century progresses the White population of the United States of America is surprisingly placid. Violence seems to be the domain of American imperialism, of Blacks, and of the nation’s local police forces.
War has resulted in a serious potential loss of freedom but neither the loss of freedom nor the wars have had much effect on our way of life. While are military forces are killing thousands of civilians, destroying property, and creating chaos in the Middle East, life at home goes on with little notice.
Both the Black and the White population suffer from the absolute authority now vested in our police. It is more noticeable in Black communities because crime is more common. Blacks protest but Whites remain silent. Black citizens are a danger to White Americans and most are willing to put up with police despots for protection.
From being keepers of the peace policemen have become unequivocal enforcers of the law. They are no longer responsible for using reasonable judgment. A mere traffic violation can escalate into an arrest and even a death. Innocent civilians are unnecessarily ordered about by policemen and charged with crimes if they disobey. This kind of arrogance produces resentment.
Our problem with police officers comes from the basic rules that govern their behavior. In another era they were called peace officers and were vested with the responsibility of maintaining a just and peaceful society. Today they are law enforcement officers vested with the responsibility of enforcing the law. The difference is quite substantial: enforcement has a strong arm connotation while peace is conciliatory.
In the presence of a police officer citizens have no rights. They are the consummate dictators whose every word must be immediately obeyed. Failure to obey results in arrest and handcuffs. This attitude comes from their leadership. The police are taught to demand acquiescence.
It is no longer the duty of police to protect citizens; their duty is to arrest law breakers. This is the reason savvy lawyers advise us to call the police only under the most dire conditions.
Suicide by police has become a recognized procedure. Police will shoot first and ask questions later. Point a gun at a policeman and you will be killed in a hail of bullets.
When policemen enter your home they may make a note of a theft or a burglary but they will also arrest you if they find any breach of current legal standards and since they know more about the law than most citizens you are at a disadvantage.
Policemen are paid to be public servants and it is time they are taught to respect innocent civilians. Convicted criminals have lost their right to be free but innocent civilians have not; Black or White, they should be treated with respect even when minor violations are involved.
They are public servants they are not dictators. Even though we have so many laws there can be reason to arrest almost anyone, the general public should always be treated with respect. Necessary instructions should be obeyed but requests should be courteous and reasonable.
If law and order is ever to return to our society the police must regain the respect of the general public.
The shadow cabal that exerts raw power over the public controls and dictates the mindset that passes as the popular culture. Keeping people in fear, real or manufactured is essential to keep the police state omnipresent. Both foreign and domestic operations are conducted to divide and rule, not only other nations, but the indigenous populations that are targets of the next clandestine mission. Since the end of WWII, the intelligence community has lead the way to overturn our constitutional republic and put into place a controlled social environment that is docile and obedient to the masters of the Amerika Empire.
In order to accomplish this fundamental transition from a free society into a despotic police state, threats must be fashioned, real or imaginary. Bona fide menaces that imperil our legitimate national security require intelligent and defensive action. However, such situations are rare, when compared to the entire mix of manufactured crisis that are designed to increase the range and scope of the power establishment.
The sordid and soiled history of the Central Intelligence Agency is a prime example of furthering international conflict and tension so that the national subjects will accept a trepidation culture. But the CIA is not alone in this coordinated effort to create undeviating terror. In the 50’s the FBI looked for a commie under any bed. Just consider how far we have sunk since Hoover did his illegal wire taps to a society that routinely accept the NSA collection of all electronic communications.
With the collapse of the Soviet International and the intellectual disrepute of Marxist ideology, one might think that the efforts of the intelligence communities might have earned their keep. With the recent disclosure of the CIA cooperated with Chinese intelligence to target Russia, the book “The Hundred Year Marathon” by former Pentagon official Michael Pillsbury reveals the following:
“Covert CIA-China cooperation was part of successive administrations’ programs to undermine the Soviet Union, which China turned on after realizing Moscow’s Marxist-Leninist economic model was doomed. China instead began courting the United States for economic benefit while creating a revised communist economic system.
The disclosures of clandestine U.S.-China intelligence cooperation dating to the 1970s are likely to embarrass Beijing. China frequently attacks the CIA for allegedly fomenting democratic revolution in China and for supporting the exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama, whom China designated as a major enemy. Beijing also accused the CIA of organizing the recent large-scale pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. The U.S. government has denied any role in the public outcry over creeping Chinese control over the former British colony.”
The significance of the “Agency” working with an advocacy to destabilize a different foe should not shock seasoned observers of international intrigue. What is even less surprising is that the defeat of the Soviet Communist regime brought a new era of openness to Russia, while the neo-commies in Beijing China perfected their totalitarian model for the NWO globalism elites.
Now that the Putin administration is exerting its own national interest and pushes back against the American expansion to surround the “Motherland”, the pro Zionists over at the State Department ratchet up pressure on the new Russia. The U.S. inspired coup in Ukraine has always been about neutering the Christian revival in Russia.
As currency wars develop and the Russia Rubble was recently undermined, the attack on any intended opposition to the “world community” is set to expand. Conversely, speculation that the IMF will soon add the Chinese Yuan as a reserve currency indicates that it is vital to craft essential enemies when needed and elevate opportunist when useful.
The common theme throughout the last century has been the planned technocratic human bondage of the world population. The calls for democratic self determination and economic uplifting for subsistent level peasants may seem to have improved the human condition. Even so, the upgrading in material minimalism has not been accompanied with respect for individual human rights.
The State, no matter what nationality or ideological orientation all share a consistent flaw; namely, a false authority of supremacy that imposes the dictates of committed globalists.
Failure to recognize that intelligence and security agencies are nothing more than police state enforcers is a prime reason why a universal populist movement does not gain traction.
Different cultures perceive the world within their own ethnic eyes. Expecting varied outlooks should be accepted as normal. However, the overriding message that comes out of the mass media, both foreign and domestic, share a common commercial content. The powers that be must be obeyed. This social indoctrination is intended to protect the interdependency of a unified global matrix.
In order to achieve this objective, perceived threats are useful. Distinguishing between tangible and phony dangers, contrary to popular wisdom, is not a function, preformed by the security apparatus, one can have confidence in. Their literal agenda is to serve the shifting global instability template, so that the elite’s can continue to have free reign on adding more layers of servitude.
Today’s serfs often wear designer duds. But more important, perception is altered when history is perverted. How the CIA Turned Doctor Zhivago into a Propaganda Weapon Against the Soviet Union provided a valuable lesson.
“The CIA’s recently revealed use of Boris Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago as a propaganda weapon. Repressed in Pasternak’s native Russia, the book first appeared in Italy in 1957. The following year, the British suggested to America’s Central Intelligence Agency that the book stood a decent chance of winning hearts and minds behind the Iron Curtain — if, of course, they could get a few copies in there. A CIA memo sent across its own Soviet Russia Division subsequently pronounced Doctor Zhivago as possessed of “great propaganda value, not only for its intrinsic message and thought-provoking nature, but also for the circumstances of its publication. We have the opportunity to make Soviet citizens wonder what is wrong with their government, when a fine literary work by the man acknowledged to be the greatest living Russian writer is not even available in his own country in his own language for his own people to read.”
That evaluation comes from one of the over 130 declassified documents used by Peter Finn and Petra Couvée in their brand new history of this act of real-life literary espionage, The Zhivago Affair: The Kremlin, the CIA and the Battle Over a Forbidden Book.”
The message behind this outstanding treasure of literature is undeniable. Hopeful, uplifting of the human spirit, while describing the grim circumstances of the commissar system, is memorable. Comrades beware; bringing down an evil empire to have it replaced with a kinder and gentler Western version of globalization is not exactly the definition of success.
Who among the defenders of Western Civilization will write the next masterpiece about the sinister motives and dire effects of the true global hegemony that seeks to subjugate all of humanity under the banner of world unity?
The imposition of State terror initiates its next operation with the full blessing of the financial controllers. Keeping and expanding the danger level of false flag terrorism, provides the excuse to impose the Jade Helm gulag.
“JADE-HELM – stands for: “Joint Assistance For Deployment and Execution – Homeland Eradication of Local Militants.” In other words, the Government is getting nervous about the fact that more Americans are now aware of the corruption, criminality and destruction of civil rights. Jade Helm is specifically intended for the purpose of eliminating fomenting Government insurrection groups. The States in which Jade Helm exercises are being conducted are “hot beds” for anti-Government militia groups (the latter are your allies).”
The faint-hearted vassals, who would never dare to jeopardize their own tranquility, if not meaningless subsistence, or oppose their countries deep sleep into oblivion, are real bondage serfs.
Keeping or amplifying the CIA sub-rosa agenda of warfare missions to include domestic operations should be opposed by any loyal citizen. Since apathy, confusion and denial of what actually constitutes a “Good and Open Society” is in such short supply, few will act upon resisting the forces of global tyranny.
When genuine national security is sacrificed to further a climate of prefab fear, we lose the battle for true safety. If enduring under a Reign of Terror is the price we all must pay to complete the global New World Order, we must be collectively insane to allow this transition to be accepted without a fight to the death.
Many will conclude that this conversion is inevitable. Doctor Zhivago was a heroic figure and fought the autocrats. His example provides motivation to apply the same principles of opposition to the established order of a demonic organized criminal syndicate.
Having the courage to combat despotism in favor of individual liberation, is fundamentally our duty and purpose as true Americans. Reject phony intelligence community terrorist threats. In order to restore the essence of our nation, every citizen needs to oppose any and all components of the New World Order. Reform will not work. Only total rebellion is left.