Paul Craig Roberts – Why World War III is on the Horizon

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FujTQilpuow/hqdefault.jpg

via Global Research:

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave birth to a dangerous American ideology called neoconservativism. The Soviet Union had served as a constraint on US unilateral action. With the removal of this constraint on Washington, neoconservatives declared their agenda of US world hegemony.  America was now the “sole superpower,” the “unipower,” that could act without restraint anywhere in the world.

The Washington Post neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up the “new reality” as follows:

“We have overwhelming global power. We are history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new–a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a stagering new development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome. Even Rome was no model for what America is today.”

The staggering unipolar power that history has given to Washington has to be protected at all costs.  In 1992 top Pentagon official Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which became the basis for Washington’s foreign policy.

Paul Wolfowitz

The Wolfowitz Doctrine states that the “first objective” of American foreign and military policy is “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat [to US unilateral action] on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” (A “hostile power” is a country sufficiently strong to have a foreign policy independent from Washington’s.)

The unilateral assertion of American power begin in ernest during the Clinton regime with the interventions in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, and the no-fly zone imposed on Iraq.  In 1997 the neoconservatives penned their “Project for a New American Century.”  In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, the neoconservatives sent a letter to President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq and “the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.”  Neoconservatives set out their program for removing seven governments in five years.

[. . .]

To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. Putin’s responsible behavior, however, is misinterpreted by neoconservatives as a sign of weakness and fear.  The neoconservatives tell President Obama to keep the pressure on Russia, and Russia will give in.  However, Putin has made it clear that Russia will not give in. Putin has sent this message on many occasions.  For example, on September 28, 2015, at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, Putin said that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world. Two days later Putin took command of the war against ISIS in Syria.

The European governments, especially Germany and the UK, are complicit in the move toward nuclear war. These two American vassal states enable Washington’s reckless aggression toward Russia by repeating Washington’s propaganda and supporting Washington’s sanctions and interventions against other countries.  As long as Europe remains nothing but an extension of Washington, the prospect of Armegeddon will continue to rise.

At this point in time, nuclear war can only be avoided in two ways.

One way is for Russia and China to surrender and accept Washington’s hegemony.

The other way is for an independent leader in Germany, the UK, or France to rise to office and withdraw from NATO.

That would begin a stampede to leave NATO, which is Washington’s prime tool for causing conflict with Russia and, thereby,  is the most dangerous force on earth to every European country and to the entire world.  If NATO continues to exist, NATO together with the neoconservative ideology of American hegemony will make nuclear war inevitable.

Read more at Global Research. . . .

15 Years in Afghanistan and the Taliban are Making Gains

via the Washington Post:

[. . .]

With control of — or a significant presence in — roughly 30 percent of districts across the nation, according to Western and Afghan officials, the Taliban now holds more territory than in any year since 2001, when the puritanical Islamists were ousted from power after the 9/11 attacks. For now, the top American and Afghan priority is preventing Helmand, largely secured by U.S. Marines and British forces in 2012, from again falling to the insurgency.

As of last month, about 7,000 members of the Afghan security forces had been killed this year, with 12,000 injured, a 26 percent increase over the total number of dead and wounded in all of 2014, said a Western official with access to the most recent NATO statistics. Attrition rates are soaring. Deserters and injured Afghan soldiers say they are fighting a more sophisticated and well-armed insurgency than they have seen in years.

As Afghan security forces struggle, U.S. Special Operations troops are increasingly being deployed into harm’s way to assist their Afghan counterparts. Since Nov. 4, four members of the U.S.-led coalition have been wounded in Helmand, said U.S. Army Col. Michael Lawhorn, a military spokesman. Officially, U.S. military personnel have a mandate only “to train, advise and assist” Afghan forces.

Read more at the Washington Post. . . .

Liberals Disgusted: Putin Stands Up For Russia Against Globalists, Gives Domestic Court Power to Overturn International Human Rights Rulings

Putin

How dare Putin stand up for Russian law against global liberalism when it takes the guise of “human rights”!

via International Business Times:

Russia’s Constitutional Court will be allowed to overturn European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rulings if it deems them to be in violation of the country’s constitution. The law signed by president Vladimir Putin will enable the court to decide whether or not to implement the decisions.

The move was designed to “thwart the ability of victims of human rights violations to find justice through international bodies when the Russian court system doesn’t deliver it,” according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). It gathered momentum after a ECHR ruling in 2014 which ordered Moscow to pay ‎€1.9bn (£1.38bn $2.09bn) in compensation to shareholders of defunct oil company, Yukos. Following the decision, Russia’s Constitutional Court was asked to clarify how ECHR decisions could be implemented if they do not adhere to the constitution.

The new bill was approved by the Russian parliament last week and signed into law by Putin on 14 December. Its aim was to “safeguard Russian legal sovereignty”, bill co-sponsor and Communist party lawmaker Vasily Likhachev said last month.

[. . .]

Margaret C. Galitzin – Pope Francis Undermined Christian Victories Over Muslim Radicals in Central African Republic

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/49e4558f1d205d546c3fe067d8c3f2e6953e6979/0_212_4047_2428/master/4047.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=c03f32a98789407472b66e60fdffe862

Leave it to the U.N.’s Pope to undermine the hard-fought victory of Christians against radical Muslim usurpers who would have shown Christians little mercy.

During his trip to Africa, Francis made a point of visiting the war-torn, dangerous city of Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic (CAR). Not many Americans know what is going on there.

In the CAR Catholic militias have organized their self-defense against the Muslims and are driving out them by the droves. In 2013, more than 100,000 Muslims lived in Bangui, whose total population was 750,000. Today, it is estimated that less than one thousand Muslims remain.

muslims kill christians

Muslim militias members with machetes terrorized Catholics and Protestants

Here is what happened.

In March of 2013, the Seleka, an Islamic coalition of militias, seized Bangui in a coup and installed the country’s first Muslim president, Michel Djotodia. These Seleka militias, then, proceeded to terrorize the majority Catholic and Protestant population (in the CAR the population is 30% Catholic and 50% Protestant and 15% Muslim).

Today international press organs conveniently ignore the unspeakable atrocities that were perpetrated on the Catholics there, but the Bangui inhabitants have not forgotten the terror they experienced.

The Muslims of the country joined the ranks of the militias; Muslims from other countries also came for the looting and killing. Soon reports were out that the Muslims were raping the Catholic women, slitting children’s throats, razing villages, burning Catholic churches, hacking off ears and limbs with machetes and throwing young men to crocodiles. Amnesty International mildly labeled these horrors “human rights violations.”

Calls were made for international intervention to protect the Catholic and Protestant population targeted for attack by the Muslims. A small contingent of African regional advisers and some French peacekeeping troops arrived, but to little effect.

So, rather than sit back and allow the minority Muslim militias to terrorize the populations and overrun the country, the Catholics and Protestants did something unusual in these pacifist times. They took up arms in vigilante-style militias called Anti-Baluka (that is, anti-machete).

Thousands have died in the fighting between the Anti-Baluka and Seleka, but the majority Anti-Baluka militias emerged victorious.

Anti-Baluka militia

Anti-Baluka men who decided to fight back in legitimate defense to protect faith and family

Suddenly the press became a bit more interested in this African war, only to paint vivid pictures of the “intolerance” of Christians and the “bloody revenge“ they were wreaking on the “poor Muslims.” The commander of French troops in the CAR went so far as to accuse the Anti-Baluka militias of being the country’s “main enemy of peace.”

The officials of the Catholic Church also are not supporting the Anti-Baluka militias. Bangui Archbishop Dieudonne Nzapalainga, recent recipient of a UN peace award, called on the media not to refer to the vigilantes as “Christian militias.” “Call them self-defense militias, village militias, but please spare us the word ‘Christian’ in this context,” he insisted. Why? Because they are causing Muslims to flee…

The result as of today: More than 440,000 Muslims have been displaced and are living in tent camps along the border and around 200,000 have fled to neighboring Cameroon, Chad and the Congo, according to the United Nations. The 15% Muslim population has been reduced to less than 1 percent. Amnesty International terms this a “terrible ethnic cleansing” and hysterically warns of a “Muslim exodus of historic proportions.”

The response of the Anti-Baluka members is to proudly proclaim that they will not stop until they have “cleaned” the country of Muslims and made it safe for their wives and children to live and worship freely. They see this as a religious war and themselves as a militia defending their country.

Francis sabotages the self-defense fight

So, what did Francis do? He did not encourage the Catholic resistance and preach a crusade against the Muslims, as many would desire. He did the opposite, of course. He went to the Mosque of the city and, in a clear propaganda move, surrounded by imans and Muslim children, he greeted the group as “dear Muslim friends and followers of Islam.”

Then, he proceeded to preach peace and brotherhood: “Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters,” he said.

Pope at the grand mosque in Bangui

Francis  warmly greets Muslims in the Grand Mosque of Bangui, one of the few left standing

In view of the war going on outside the door, nothing could be more favorable to the Muslims. But Francis actually found something more unrealistic to say next. Against all evidence, he insisted that the reasons for the fight are “not grounded in properly religious motives.”

No, for Francis, it is not a religious war at all. He did not specify what it really was, but from his other comments in Africa, he would probably blame Capitalism, the diamond trade, or perhaps even climate change for the mutual killing that is going on today in the CAR.

If you go to the streets, however, where the fight is taking place, and talk to the people, you will hear the truth, what everyone knows, that this is a religious war. Anti-Baluka chief Captain Dopani Firmin states firmly, “We cannot accept to live together with Muslims, long-term. It’s our right to kill Muslims.”

The Muslims also acknowledge the religious nature of the war and proclaim their aim to continue the fight. A Muslim woman called Abidah living in one of the refugee camps on the border guarded by UN troops lost her husband in the fighting a year ago, and her sons want revenge. “Every person outside there is an enemy and divided on religious beliefs,” she says simply.

Read more at Tradition in Action. . . .

Pope Francis Doesn’t Believe Contraception is Worthy of Comment, Yet He Warns Against Fundamentalism and Climate Change

https://i2.wp.com/www.thehansindia.com/assets/4039_Pope%20francis.jpg

Pope Francis feels quite free to lecture the world about the supposed need for nations to limit their sovereignty in the face of carbon dioxide, a component of the atmosphere that amounts to less than one percent, one that plants convert into their biomass through photosynthesis.

The pope is also quick to repeatedly bash those whom he calls “fundamentalists” but who seem to include people who take the tenets of their faith, including (if not especially) those of Catholicism, seriously.

Yet, Francis refuses to comment on the sinfulness of contraception or homosexuality. To him it is a greater sin to uphold one’s faith and nation as distinct from all others than to commit carnal sins that separate us from God.

Certainly one can take nationalism and dogmatism to unhealthy levels, but in his drive to water down national and religious distinctions, Francis isn’t simply condemning the very extremes of fanaticism, he is undermining the distinctions themselves.

via Life Site News via the National Catholic Reporter:

[. . .]

Recounting a meeting he had participated in that focused on what kind of world we are leaving our children, the pope said someone there had asked: “But are you sure that there will be children of this generation?”

“We are at the limit,” said Francis. “We are at the limit of a suicide, to say a strong word.”

But he added: “I am sure that almost all who are in Paris … have this awareness and want to do something.”

“I have trust; I have trust that these [leaders] will do something,” the pope continued. “Because I would say I am sure they have the good will to do it. And I wish that it will be so, and I pray for this.”

[. . .]

Francis also faced a question about the church’s teaching prohibiting use of artificial contraception from a journalist who asked if the church should consider changing its stance on the issue — particularly on the use of condoms — given the continuing spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

“The question seems too small to me,” the pontiff responded. “It seems to me also like a partial question.”

“The morality of the church is found on this point, I think, in front of a perplexity,” he said. “Fifth or Sixth commandment? Defend life, or that sexual relations be open to life? This is not the problem. The problem is bigger.”

“This question makes me think of what they asked Jesus one time: ‘Tell me, master, is it licit to heal on the Sabbath?'” Francis continued.

“Malnutrition, exploitation of persons, slave work, lack of drinking water,” he said. “These are the problems.”

“I do not like to descend into reflections that are so casuistic when people are dying,” he continued. “I would say to not think if it is licit or not licit to heal on the Sabbath. I say to humanity: Make justice, and when all are healed, when there is not injustice in this world, we can speak of the Sabbath.”

Francis also spoke out strongly again against religious fundamentalism, saying that fundamentalism exists in all religions and should be combatted with efforts at friendship. He said he prefers not to speak of having tolerance for other religious, but “living together, friendship.”

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” said the pontiff. “We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil.”

“They do evil,” said the pope. “I say this because it is my church.”

“We have to combat it,” he said. “Religious fundamentalism is not religious, because it lacks God. It is idolatry, like the idolatry of money.”

On a similar line, Francis also defended Islam, saying that Muslims have many constructive values.

“I even have the experience of friendship — it is a strong word, friendship — with a Muslim,” said the pontiff. “We can speak. His values are mine. He prays. I pray.”

“You cannot cancel out a religion because there are some groups, or many groups in a certain point of history, of fundamentalists,” said the pope, adding that Christians have to ask forgiveness for the many times wars have been perpetrated in the name of their faith.

“Like everything, there are religious people with values and those without,” he said. “But how many wars … have Christians made? The sacking of Rome was not done by Muslims, eh?”

Read more at National Catholic Reporter.

Wikipedia – 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (Paris Climate Change Agreement)

https://kirkleescampaignagainstclimatechange.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/paris_eiffel_tower_climate.jpg?w=600
United Nations Climate Change Conference
2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference logo.jpg
Date 30 November 2015–
11 December 2015
Location Paris, France
Also known as COP 21/CMP 11
Participants UNFCCC member countries
Website Venue site
UNFCCC site

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21 or CMP 11 will be held in Paris,[1] from November 30 to December 11.[2] It will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.[3] The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. Leadership of the negotiations is yet to be determined.

Background

According to the organizing committee, the objective of the 2015 conference is to achieve, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world.[2]

Pope Francis published an encyclical called Laudato si’ intended, in part, to influence the conference. The encyclical calls for action against climate change. The International Trade Union Confederation has called for the goal to be “zero carbon, zero poverty”, and the general secretary Sharan Burrow has repeated that there are “no jobs on a dead planet”.

Location and participation

The location of UNFCCC talks is rotated by regions throughout United Nations countries. The 2015 conference will be held at Le Bourget from November 30 to December 11, 2015.[4]

Read more at Wikipedia.

DC Whispers – Obama’s Betrayal: The IMF’s Paris Climate Change Agreement

Her name is Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF. For most Americans it is not a name that will register more than scant recognition, and yet, she is among the single greatest individual global powers whose influence has been exponentially furthered by what many feel to be a pending global “climate change” agreement between the leading economic nations.

The French-born Lagarde helped bring into power in France the current socialist President, Francois Hollande, utilizing the tools of finances and scandal to push out former conservative French President, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Since that time, the socialist accelerator has been pushed to the floor throughout Europe via Lagarde’s willful manipulation of various state pension fund debts that reduce a nation’s autonomy as little more than symbolic and making it forever indebted to the IMF’s more globalist outlook. Money is loaned never to be paid back, thus making the IMF the defacto supervising power of that nation’s economy.

The above is a simplistic version of reality, but quite accurate. Think of it as our own Federal Reserve with even greater powers to get an idea of what the IMF and its World Bank cohort represents.

[. . .]

Which brings us to this week’s much publicized Paris Climate Change conference, a gathering of international leaders that was created in part by the direct hand of the IMF’s Christine Lagarde. Check out this excerpt from a Guardian.com report:

…World leaders including Barack Obama, Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel and David Cameron are preparing to fly to the French capital to open the COP 21 negotiations, which begin on Monday and aim to produce an international deal to reduce carbon emissions that will kick in from 2020.

…Fabius vowed in an interview to forge an agreement that would be “universal, legally binding, durable and dynamic”.

It is a globalist accord mandated by entities like the IMF, World Bank, and the United Nations that intends to grant itself “legally binding” powers. Those powers is where Lagarde’s influence will be most significant. Since the IMF now holds significant debts of participating nations it thus holds significant influence. Monies given to “developing” nations to convert to a “carbon-friendly” economy will be funneled through the IMF’s global financial machine, thus making those cooperating nations further indebted and thus more greatly influenced, by the IMF’s mandates on what kind of government economy is deemed to be acceptable or not.

Now with that in mind, read this excerpt from a 2013 ArmstrongEconomics report:

The money people have saved the IMF maintains should be used for debt service by sheer force. To reduce the enormous national debt, they maintain that government has the right to directly usurp the savings of citizens. Whether saving money, securities or real estate, about ten percent could be expropriated. This is the IMF view. 

Read more at DC Whispers.

Globalist Pope: Without Cooperation We Don’t Move Forward, Pope Says at UN in Kenya

More talks of global cooperation and an end to fanaticism and tribalism from the UN’s pope.

Speaking at the United Nations office in Nairobi, Kenya, Pope Francis said on Thursday that working together is necessary to conquer problems, whether in the realms of politics, health, or development.

No country “can act independently of a common responsibility. If we truly desire positive change, we have to humbly accept our interdependence, Pope Francis said Nov. 26, repeating his words from an Address to Popular Movements this July.

The Pope was in Kenya Nov. 25-27 as part of a larger African tour that will also take him to Uganda and the Central African Republic later this week.

“The problem arises whenever we think of interdependence as a synonym for domination, or the subjection of some to the interests of others, of the powerless to the powerful,” the Pope explained to those gathered at the U.N. hall. “What is needed is sincere and open dialogue, with responsible cooperation on the part of all: political authorities, the scientific community, the business world and civil society.”

When politics, science and business work together, with the “human person and human dignity the point of departure and the goal of everything,” he said, substantial change can occur.

Read more at EWTN.

Chuck Baldwin – What is a Neocon?

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/extremist_profile_images/SPLC-Extremist-Files-Chuck-Baldwin-1280x720.jpg

The word “neocon” has become a common term in our political lexicon. However, I don’t think most conservatives truly understand its definition.

First, people need to understand that many neocons call themselves “conservative” on domestic social issues. Not all neocons are truly conservative on these issues–some aren’t. But many neocons DO trumpet themselves as socially “conservative.” These folks like to identify themselves as “pro-life” or “pro-family” or “pro-defense” or “pro-limited government,” etc. But these titles are mostly meaningless.

At this point, it is imperative that we understand how politicians in Washington, D.C., operate. Here is a quick primer: Congressional leaders know which congressmen and senators are controllable–and most of them are. Only a handful of our federal congressmen and senators are “untouchable.” My guess is less than 100 out of the 535 House members and U.S. senators are truly NOT controlled–and that includes liberals and conservatives. [. . .]

[. . .] Second, please understand that the fundamental goal of those elitists who control the neocons is GLOBALISM. For the most part, these people care absolutely nothing about domestic social issues. It doesn’t matter to them one whit whether a congressman is pro-life or pro-choice; whether he or she is “pro-family” or pro-gay marriage; whether he or she is identified as a conservative or a liberal. These issues don’t even enter the mind of a globalist. They have but one goal: GLOBALISM. Accordingly, everything they promote promotes globalism. EVERYTHING! Never forget that! [. . .]

[. . .]

Pro-International “Free Trade” Deals

From NAFTA to TPP, these so-called “free trade” deals are nothing more than international loopholes that discriminate against the manufacturing jobs and labor class of individual countries and favor the billionaire class that conducts business internationally.

[. . .]

Pro-Illegal Immigration

The great goal of globalists is to blur or even eliminate national borders. National borders, and the laws that protect them, are VERY burdensome to multinational traders. National borders restrict globalists in their pursuit of international wealth. They envision a global economy with a global government in place to protect that global economy. Individual nationhood is an obstacle to that goal.

[. . .]

• Pro-war
NOTHING rings the cash register for globalists like war. War helps to replace recalcitrant national leaders who refuse to give international financiers carte blanche in their countries. War helps to redraw national boundaries that favor the global economy. War brings HUGE profit windfalls to the military-industrial complex that is mostly in bed with high-paying globalists. War causes citizens in free countries to accept more governmental authority (which ALWAYS includes an international component) over their affairs that would never be the case in peacetime. War is also the perfect solution to resolve the economic problems of a sinking financial system.

[. . .]

Pro-Police State

Freedom is anathema to globalists; an armed citizenry is anathema to globalists. In order for globalism to succeed, people must be restrained. They must be surveilled. They must be regulated. They must be controlled.

[. . .]

• Pro-Deficit Spending
Neocons support deficit spending. In this, they are far worse than overt liberals. For example, liberals in the Democrat Party want to tax-and-spend, while neocons in the Republican Party want to borrow-and-spend. Between the two, deficit spending is worse because it gives the federal government (and the globalists who influence and leech off them) unlimited spending–and thus unlimited profits. Beyond that, the inevitable result of unrestrained spending is WAR: globalists’ biggest cash cow of all. They win coming and going.

Read more at NewsWithViews

  • June 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
%d bloggers like this: