Cliff Varnell Wrote:more red

David Guyatt Wrote:Yes, it's absurd.

But madness percolates through the veins of the elites in Washington - and has done for the last two decades, since the end of the cold war.

So The Madness started at the end of 1991?

News to me.

I've been actively protesting The Madness since 1972, so I dare say you're late to the party.

The US will would threaten and quite possibly engage in a world war against Russia and China to keep their financial franchise -- because if that franchise is dissolves - given the immense and unserviceable US debt - the US will sooner rather than later fracture and crumble.

Your comments betray a fundamental mis-appraisal of the American economy.

But don't feel bad -- its something no one over here gets either.

There is a huge black market economy in the US which doesn't show up in statistics.

For one instance among many: Any idea how much unclaimed drug money sits in US financial institutions -- drug money put there by narco-bosses who are either dead or incarcerated -- and will never be withdrawn?

It's likely in the trillions. It's why the banks didn't collapse in Sept. of 2008.

The underground economy employs hundreds of thousands and generates hundreds of billions of dollars and there is no accounting for it.

The above-ground economies of the US-China are deeply intertwined, btw.

A few might profit on this apocalyptic world war you imagine -- but it's a loser for the elites.

Why would the US go to nuke-war with the Russians and give up Caucasian dominance world-wide?

With the exception of the "Irish troubles", the break-up of Yugoslavia, and in the eastern Ukraine --since the end of WW2 white folks don't war on white folks.

***

PS, this is not about oil, or drugs... it's far bigger than either of those.

It's G.O.D.

Guns-Oil-Drugs.

What is "far bigger," exactly?

Quote:Your comments betray a fundamental mis-appraisal of the American economy.

But don't feel bad -- its something no one over here gets either.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Quote:Your comments betray a fundamental mis-appraisal of the American economy.

But don't feel bad -- its something no one over here gets either.

Care to elaborate Cliff?

David Guyatt Wrote:

Cliff Varnell Wrote:more red

David Guyatt Wrote:Yes, it's absurd.

But madness percolates through the veins of the elites in Washington - and has done for the last two decades, since the end of the cold war.

So The Madness started at the end of 1991?

News to me.

I've been actively protesting The Madness since 1972, so I dare say you're late to the party.

The US will would threaten and quite possibly engage in a world war against Russia and China to keep their financial franchise -- because if that franchise is dissolves - given the immense and unserviceable US debt - the US will sooner rather than later fracture and crumble.

Your comments betray a fundamental mis-appraisal of the American economy.

But don't feel bad -- its something no one over here gets either.

There is a huge black market economy in the US which doesn't show up in statistics.

For one instance among many: Any idea how much unclaimed drug money sits in US financial institutions -- drug money put there by narco-bosses who are either dead or incarcerated -- and will never be withdrawn?

It's likely in the trillions. It's why the banks didn't collapse in Sept. of 2008.

The underground economy employs hundreds of thousands and generates hundreds of billions of dollars and there is no accounting for it.

The above-ground economies of the US-China are deeply intertwined, btw.

A few might profit on this apocalyptic world war you imagine -- but it's a loser for the elites.

Why would the US go to nuke-war with the Russians and give up Caucasian dominance world-wide?

With the exception of the "Irish troubles", the break-up of Yugoslavia, and in the eastern Ukraine --since the end of WW2 white folks don't war on white folks.

***

PS, this is not about oil, or drugs... it's far bigger than either of those.

It's G.O.D.

Guns-Oil-Drugs.

What is "far bigger," exactly?

Things changed in 1990/91 with the end if the cold war and the immediately broken promise by the US not to push NATO further east in exchange for the Soviets to agree to allow the then two Germany's to reunite.

The Soviets "allowed" the re-unification of Germany?

Really?

And their other option once the Berlin Wall came down was to invade East Germany?

Peace was then possible for a change, but obviously was not wanted by the US elite.

What did the people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia want?

And so a commitment by the US and Germans was immediately and irrevocably broken that set the tone for the future. You have the Defence Planning document (have you read it btw?) a.k.a., the Wolfowitz Doctrine born out of that which set out the US's plan for world domination for the new century.

How'd that work out?

Not well.

But to answer your question what is bigger than those three is the whole sack of repulsive shit rolled together which is coming under threat from China and Russia - US dollar hegemony...

Are you sure Russia and China are on the same page?

in other words, currency is bigger than those three, as that is the medium by which they are alchemically transmuted into something other than what they are in essence.

If China, Russia and BRICS are eventually successful in establishing a competing reserve currency, and if enough nations switch out to that (and many who are sick and tired of US bullying tactics will switch) then the US dollar will eventually crumble and shatter.

Since when has China been economically bullied by the US of A?

Seems they've done quite well in their trade relations with the States.

And that tipping point - which is more or less imminent - the question will be whether the US elite will take a gamble with another world war in the hope they will be victorious again and come out of the ashes still in control, as they did with WWII.

The US is a nation where gambling is deeply embedded in the psyche. And the US psyche is trapped in its shadow and thus rational decisions are far from assured.

The US of A doesn't do anything militarily without the Brits.

Tend to the mote in your own eye...

So the madness question is whether the US elite will say to themselves: "if we can't have it, then you sure as hell can't either".

"If the sun comes up tomorrow, it is only because of men of good will. That is all there is between us and the devil".
Kevin Costner playing Kenny O'Donnell in the film 13 Days about the Cuban Missile crisis.

Will someone care to show me where there are men of good will today please?

Voices have to rise en masse from below.

Quote:08.08.2016 Author: Tony Cartalucci

US Think Tank Admits US Carving Out "Safe Havens" in Syria

Column: Politics
Region: Middle East
Country: Syria


Since the onset of the war in Syria, corporate-financier funded think tanks engineering American and European foreign policy made it clear that establishing no-fly zones and "safe havens" in Syria would be an incremental step toward achieving regime change and rendering the nation divided and destroyed as US policymakers had done to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya beforehand.In particular, The Brookings Institution has for years now published paper after paper regarding the establishment of such "safe havens" in Syria under a variety of geopolitical, strategic, and tactical ploys.As early as 2012, in a Brookings paper titled, "Assessing Options for Regime Change," its policymakers would state (emphasis added):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan's leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

Brookings had hoped that the corridors and safe havens would provide a foothold from which additional covert and overt Western military power could be wielded to ultimately overthrow the government in Damascus and render Syria a perpetually divided and destroyed nation, incapable of impeding Western regional ambitions well into the foreseeable future.From 2012 onward, the notion of safe havens would emanate out from corporate-financier funded think tanks, across the Western media, and attempt to work its way into US foreign policy both in the halls of Congress and the White House, as well as on the ground in Syria itself.Clearly, however, despite great efforts over the last 5 years to establish such safe havens, none have admittedly materialized. This comes from the Brooking Institutions' own latest appraisal of its failed policy or one should more accurately say foiled policy.

Revisiting No-Fly Zones

Upon Brookings' "Order From Chaos" blog, is a paper titled, "What to do when containing the Syrian crisis has failed." The paper mentions revisiting both no-fly zones, as well as "safe havens." Regarding no-fly zones, it states (emphasis added):

We must also be clever about employing various options for no-fly zones: We cannot shoot down an airplane without knowing if it's Russian or Syrian, but we can identify those aircraft after the fact and destroy Syrian planes on the ground if they were found to have barrel-bombed a neighborhood, for example. These kinds of operations are complicated, no doubt, and especially with Russian aircraft in the areabut I think we have made a mistake in tying ourselves in knots over the issue, since there are options we can pursue.

It should be noted, that while Brookings appears not to be (openly) interested in shooting down Russian planes, others among America's political and policy establishment have. This includes US Senator John McCain who openly called to arm terrorists with anti-aircraft missiles to down Russian warplanes.McCain would say in a 2015 interview on Fox News that:

I might do what we did in Afghanistan many years ago, to give those guys the ability to shoot down those planes. That equipment is available.

When asked to clarify his statement as to who would be shooting down the planes, McCain would answer:

The Free Syrian Army, just like the Afghans shot down the Russian…

Terrorists, including the self-proclaimed "Islamic State," have in fact used US manufactured anti-tank missiles to down Russian helicopters. The Japan Times would report in an article titled, "U.S. missile brought down Russian helicopter in Syria: report," that:

Two Russian airmen killed in Syria on Friday were shot down with American weaponry, the Interfax news agency said Sunday, quoting a Russian military source. It said insurgents from the Islamic State group hit the airmen's Mi-25 assault helicopter with a U.S.-made TOW heavy anti-tank missile, a weapon that uses guidance from a ground station.

Either by extraordinary coincidence, or by a more than expected act of treachery, no-fly zones are being incrementally established in certain parts of Syria at least in regards to rotary aircraft and all due to US weapons ending up "accidentally" in the hands of designated terrorist groups. Senator McCain's dream of "guys" from the Islamic State shooting down Russian aircraft just like they Al Qaeda did in Afghanistan has become a partial reality. Brookings apparently wants to expand on that reality.

The Safe Haven Plan, V.2

In regards to carving out safe havens, Brookings would claim in its recent paper that (emphasis added):

…we should push the debate about what creating safe havens really means. I don't think we should start declaring safe havens, but rather try to help them emerge. The Kurds are making gains in Syria's northeast, for instance, as are some forces on the southern frontso, if the United States, in cooperation with its allies, accelerates and intensifies its involvement on the ground in those areas, safe havens can essentially emerge. An important advantage of this approach is that it doesn't require putting American credibility on the line, but does help local allies build up and reinforces successes on the ground.

It should be noted that for several years now, the US has incrementally revealed the scope US troops have been playing on the ground in Syria. Brookings itself alludes to the fact that US troops are already present on the ground, and simply suggests intensifying and accelerating' their activities so desired safe havens can simply "emerge." Of course, this was what analysts and governments opposed to Western intervention in Syria have warned about for years with the West's own policymakers finally revealing the full truth behind the presence of US troops in Syria. It was warned for years that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" served merely a pretext for direct US intervention US intervention that would only feign its fight against "terrorism," and instead carve up Syrian territory ahead of efforts to topple the government and destroy the nation as was done in Libya.Brookings and other centers churning out US policy may have succeeded in their plans, had it not been for Russia's decision to directly aid the embattled government of Syria. The presence of Russian aircraft in the skies over Syria, the presence of Russian troops on the ground, and the expansion of Russian activities across the country mean little room is left for the US to carve out its "safe havens."As tragic as Russia's losses have been in the face of US-armed terrorists utilizing anti-tank missiles to down helicopters, the vector sum of Russia's operations in Syria still spell defeat for US aspirations of regime change as well as the goal of creating a failed state such regime change implies.
http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/08/us-think-tank-admits-us-carving-out-safe-havens-in-syria/

Quote:Published on August 8, 2016
Comments 6

The Renewed Call for War in Syria is coming. Be ready.

by Kit

Since Russia and Iran agreed to lend military assistance to the embattled government od President Bashar al-Assad, Syria has taken very much a backseat in the Western political sphere. The Russian presence there seemed to silence all but the most insane warmongers in Washington and Whitehall. We got updates, courtesy of NGOs like the highly suspicious Syrian Civil Defense, telling us how "brutal" the Russian bombing campaigns were, and how "savage" the siege-tactics have been. Occaisionally a lunatic like Natalie Nougayrède will write about how "we" are "letting down the people of Syria". But it's a long time since anyone read any of NatNug's columns with anything but a sense of baffled pity for the poor old dear.
Brexit, the Labour coup and the Presidential election in the US have pushed Syria further to the back pages recently. The vague, simmering propaganda execises about Syria's "plight" are met with derision by the public, never has the general population's opinion been so far from what they are supposed to think. It is a sign of the power of the internet, and the failing of the old media mechanisms.
All this is primed for a change, however. There will be a renewed push for war in Syria before the end of the year. With Iran and Russia already deeply involved, any Western military intervention could easily trigger a truly global conflict. In the nuclear age such a war would be brief and catastrophic. These risks cannot be overstated.
The ordained presidential successor to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, has been shown to be a dangerously psychopathic warmonger many times in her political career blazing a path of destruction from Latin America to the Middle East via Eastern Europe. Once elected she will make Barack Obama look like the drum-circle peacenik he has always pretended to be. Her projected Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, is a glassy-eyed neocon lunatic who already, in Ukraine, pushed us right to the precipice of calamity and started spitting over the edge.
It was reported, late last month, that a Clinton regime:

…will reset Syria policy against murderous' Assad regime

This comes from a statement made by one of Hillary's aides, the delightfully named Jeremy Bash, speaking the Telegraph Bash also said:

…a Clinton administration would seek to bring moral clarity to the US strategy on the Syrian crises."

For those of you behind on your Newspeak lessons, "moral clarity" means bombing more people. It means arming terrorists and mercenaries (even more than they already are), and it means implementing the famous "no fly zone". People tend to think of a no-fly zone as a passive, defensive measure. It is neither. A no fly zone means NATO jets patrolling the skies above Syria, shooting down Russian and Syrian bombers. A no fly zone is World War III waiting to happen. A no fly zone is a global suicide pact. Nevertheless, it will almost certainly be part of the "moral clarity" Clinton intends to bring to bear on Syria.
There are also signs of a renewed propaganda campaign re: Syria. On August 6th Le Point [link in original French] headlined:

Why Putin is going to destroy Aleppo

Coupled with the Telegraph article, and the 1, 2, 3, 4 editorials in the Guardian in the last week (2 by the increasingly bewildered and incoherent NatNug), and the failed hype of a "new chemical attack", you can sense an increased energy surrounding the Syria question.
The "new chemical attack" is the reported use of barrel-bombs laced with chlorine gas in Idlib province. Reported, it should be pointed out, only by the previously mentioned Syrian Civil Defence, also known as the "White Helmets". Whose about page declares[our emphasis]:

Syria Civil Defence receives funding (through Mayday Rescue and Chemonics) from the governments of the UK, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Japan, and the USA. This funding goes towards the training, equipment and support we need to achieve our mission.

Now, the more cynically minded readers might be thinking this calls into question how "neutral, impartial and humanitarian" they are, don't worry because:

Our donors…do not control the mission of the organisation, our advocacy messages or our internal leadership structure."

So that's alright then.
It's interesting that, alongside the sudden ratcheting up of tension from the media and Western-backed NGOs, there is also the sudden identity crisis for Jabhat al-Nusra. They have decided to cut all ties with al-Qaeda, and change their name. The "moderates" are getting more moderate every day, now they are even disavowing their jihadist roots and calling themselves a new friendly name: Jaish al-Fatah, or "The Army of Conquest"…which doesn't sound especially "moderate" to me, but then again neither does decapitating prisoners or eating human organs.
John Kerry said, on May 5th this year, that August 1st would be the deadline (a new "red line", if you will) for Assad to step down…or else.
He said:

…either something happens in these next few months, or they are asking for a very different track."

Assad is, obviously, still in power. The board was set, and now the pieces are moving.
To sum up:

• In the week leading up to the 1st of August the Western media began a new barrage of propaganda concerning Syria, and especially Aleppo.
  
• On July 28th al-Nusra Front, the much derided "moderate rebels", changed their name and disavowed all links to al-Qaeda (or pretended to, at least).
  
• On August 1st the "rebels" launched a counter-attack, trying to cut the supply lines of the government forces surrounding Aleppo, and a Russian helicopter was shot down, killing 5 Russian soldiers.
  

Nobody is asking where the "besieged" rebels got the arms and supplies needed to counter-attack. No one is asking where the rebels, who previously had no anti-air weapons, got the MANPADs required to take down a helicopter. No one is asking, because everyone knows.
It's the same place ISIS get their matching Toyotas and green-screen equipment. It's the same place that started this war five years ago, and the same place that will set the whole world ablaze if allowed to go unchecked.

Cliff Varnell Wrote:Here's an interesting article indicating that US dollar hegemony is a thing of the past.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/is-the-dollar-losing-its-clout-among-ems.html#.

The gold bugs chime in...

http://www.goldcore.com/us/gold-blog/currency-wars-continue-imf-concedes-end-dollar-hegemony/

The era of dollar hegemony is over and yet the US economy hums along and we ain't nuking the Russians.

Quote:Still, the greenback's status as a global reserve currency remains intact, experts say.

"The dollar is declining as a trade currency, but it remains strong as a reserve currency. Right now, it's around 61 percent of global reserves, versus 70 percent over a decade ago," said Rickards.

Quote:The Pentagon's 1996 plan to nuke Libya had been announced in no uncertain terms at a press briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense Harold P. Smith:

"[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. 'We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,' Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 'would be the nuclear weapon of choice,' he told Jane Defence Weekly. (The Nuclear Information Project: the B61-11)