Tag Archives: Greece

Paul Craig Roberts: The True Motive Behind The Iran Nuclear Treaty

All that the agreement with Iran means is that Washington has belatedly realized that the concocted Iranian and Muslim threats are using up time, energy, and resources that Washington needs to apply to Russia and China.  –  Paul Craig Roberts,  LINK

The U.S. has wasted $6 trillion, thousands of U.S. lives  and 100,000’s of innocent Muslim civilian lives on George W. Bush’s “war on terr-uh.”  Obama rode into the White House on promises to end the insanity and illegal war of the previous administration.  Instead, Obama has escalated and intensified every aspect of the United States’ attempt at global hegemony.

Thus, as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts brilliantly lays out, the real reason for Washington’s deal with Iran was to enable the Department of Defense to re-direct resources and taxpayer money toward its attempt to subjugate Russian and China.

This essay by Dr. Roberts sheds brilliant insight on the real reasons behind the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran, not the least of which is an attempt  make Iran’s oil freely available to Europe and reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.  He also delineates the true reason for United States’ influence on keeping Greece in the EU.

This is a must-read, must-contemplate essay:   The Real Reason For The Iran Agreement

Although I have  not correctly predicted the path followed and timeframe, predictions I made in conjunction with a few other “truthseekers” about 12 years ago are unfolding as we asserted they would.

I would still stand by my assertion that gold will be restored as the world’s “base” currency, however I now am nearly certain it will never have that chance before a world war erupts – a world war that will likely take humanity back to the Stone Age.  If you want a great vision of what this could look like, read “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.   –  Albert Einstein

 

Happy Fourth Of July?

To begin with, the founders created a republic, and all of the founding debate in the late 18th century used the language of the republic from ancient Athens and Greece. And one of the key qualities of the republic was resistance to corruption. Now, they did not define corruption as bribery. They defined corruption as placing special or personal interests ahead of the common good — or today what we would call national interest. And when you apply that standard to politics in America today, we are a massively corrupt republic.  –  Gary Hart, former Senator from Colorado and 1984 Presidential candidate – Westword article link

I’m not really sure why we celebrate the 4th of July anymore.  What is it exactly that we’re celebrating?  The fact that we’ve been stripped of the rights – the Bill of Rights – and the guarantee of those rights – by the most ruthlessly corrupt Government in history?  Are we celebrating the fact that the police in this country get away with killing an average of 1 person every 7 hours?  Perhaps some of you are cracking a champagne bottle over the fact that the business and political elite running this country are allowed to operate free from any fear whatsoever of violating the legal constraints originally put in place to prevent  their unfettererd wanton acts of political  rape, financial pillage and unbridled wealth theft.

Certainly all military activity since WW2 has been based on rampant U.S. imperialism seeded in the U.S. Government’s attempt to rule the globe – to impose our “exceptional” code of values and ethics (note the sarcasm) on the rest of the world.    The principles and Rule of Law upon which this country was founded have been smashed and usurped by an uncontrollable, filthy band of criminal elitists and the corrupted politicians they have purchased.  This specifically and especially includes “President” Obama, who is perhaps the most pathetic political sock-puppet in history.

The theme of the ruling elite this year is “beware of terrorists.”  The news this morning was advising viewers to “report anything suspicious.”   The fear-mongering propagated by our Government has become beyond ridiculous.  Bankers and corporate America commit felonies – and in some cases have admitted it – yet, they go unpunished.  In fact, at tthe absurd extreme, the front-running candidate to be the next President has openly committed treason and multiple felonies.  Go figure that one.

Untitled

In the context of the global community, it’s outright embarrassing, if not pathetic to be an American…I wanted to re-print this interview with Gary Hart published in Westword magazine, Denver’s version of New City’s “Village Voice.”  Hart delivers a brutal assessment of this country’s lapse into Dante’s Inferno.

Westword: Can you give a quick synopsis of The Republic of Conscience?

Gary Hart: It’s a contrast between what the founders of our country envisioned and what we have become in the 21st century, especially in the field — I guess you would call it — of political ethics. To begin with, the founders created a republic, and all of the founding debate in the late 18th century used the language of the republic from ancient Athens and Greece. And one of the key qualities of the republic was resistance to corruption. Now, they did not define corruption as bribery. They defined corruption as placing special or personal interests ahead of the common good — or today what we would call national interest. And when you apply that standard to politics in America today, we are a massively corrupt republic. [This is] because of the explosive growth of the lobbying industry in Washington, including now over 400 former members of Congress…and the connection of that industry to the staggering increase in campaign-financing costs, and the amount of money that candidates for office raise from those special interests and lobbyists. And then finally, [we’re] creating a kind of closed political system in Washington, in which you have to be part of that political elite to get anything done or try to pursue what’s best for the country. And that’s my analysis in 200 pages as to why there is such frustration with a stalemated government.

Westword:  The Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United case comes to mind when you speak of the growing influence of money in the political system. What have been some of the other developments that have given more power to wealth and special interests?

The time while I was in office, which was in the ’70s and ’80s, [witnessed] the beginning of the merging of office holders with lobbyists, and as I’ve mentioned earlier, the transference of former members of Congress, whether retired or defeated, into the ranks of lobbyists, so that they could use their contacts in Washington…to get what they want for their largely corporate clients, and then, when they were successful, reward the members of Congress who voted for them…with heavy campaign contributions. What the Supreme Court managed to do was legalize and legitimize this kind of institution of corruption. So it’s been a phenomenon of the last thirty, no, more than forty years, and has occurred in my lifetime. And what it does is take away the idealism of young people who want to work in government to help their country, when they see first-hand as members of staff, or as young elected officials, how this system works and how corrupted it is. And it erodes that idealism, and it causes people to say, “Okay, if everybody is making a lot of money doing this, then I’m going to make a lot of money doing it as well.”

Westword:  Can you offer a comparison between what it takes financially to run a political campaign today with what was required when you ran for President in 1984 and 1988?

Well, let’s start with the Senate. It draws a laugh now when I tell people this: When I ran for the Senate in 1974, and there was a contested primary among Democrats to run [against] a very wealthy, two-term, Republican incumbent… the entire race from beginning to end cost $375,000 dollars, and the average contribution was $17. By 1980, when I ran for reelection, I had to raise $1.1 million, three times the amount six years before, and I was outspent, even though I won. By today’s time, a Senate seat in Colorado, a state of five million people, costs roughly $25 million to $30 million — or even more. So you can see the contrast between 1974 and 2015, just in that fairly short period of time in American history. On the national level, I ran a close second to Vice President Mondale for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and I think the total amount in fifty states — we campaigned in all fifty states and the contest went to the convention in San Francisco — our entire campaign was $20 million to $25 million, which I thought was a staggering amount at the time…. Well, today Hillary Clinton says she’s going to raise at least $1 billion, and possibly, her staff says, as much as $2.5 billion. So that’s happened in this country in thirty years — it’s staggering.

Westord:  In 2014 an article out of Princeton caused some stir by implying that the United States is an oligarchy, not a democracy — nor a republic, for that matter. Would you confirm that notion?

Well, make sure that everybody understands what that means. It basically is a term applied to countries where there are very few ruling families, as in much of – in the past, at least – Latin America and other parts of the world. Well, if we get down to a Bush-Clinton race, this will be the fourth presidential campaign for a Clinton, two of which have been successful, and the fourth or fifth race for a member of the Bush family for the presidency, three of which have been successful. That comes very very close to any definition of oligarchy you want to mention. Now somebody’s going to say, “There’s fifteen people on the Republican side.” This is more or less true. But that includes not only a Bush whose father and brother were presidents, but a number of candidates who, right out of the starting block, have their own billionaire sponsors – whether a casino mogul or some other extremely wealthy person. If that’s what we’ve gotten down to, that is a form of oligarchy.

Westword:  Given your open lament of political dynasties in America, who would you want to see as Democratic candidate for the upcoming presidential race?

Someone who understands the dramatic changes going on the world in the 21st century. I’m not going to name any names. 2015 is dramatically different from the 1990s. Even if you were first lady in the 1990s, you need to think about an almost totally different world, and not govern with the same people, the same ideas, the same policies that your husband pursued 15, 20 or 25 years ago. That’s a roundabout way of saying I’m hoping one of the Democratic candidates – and the field is not yet closed, I don’t think – will reveal an understanding of the world in which we live: of globalization, of the information revolution, of the changing nature of warfare, of trade, of immigration, of all of these 21st century new realities and propose policies specifically to address them. Not just say “immigration is a big issue” or “trade is a complicated issue” — that’s not enough. The people of this country are smart, and they want candidates who can say, “And here’s what I think we should do about it,” in very specific terms.

Westword: Going back to the 18th century, what are some of the principles you speak of that inspired you to write Republic of Conscience?

I started twenty or so years ago studying the history of the republic. We’re taught in America about – and we use the language of -democracy. But as I said earlier, if you read the founding documents and the debates, they used the language of the republic, and if you stopped ten people on the street and said, “What is a republic?” they probably couldn’t tell you because it’s not taught in our schools.

So I did my own study, including getting an advanced degree on the history of the republic and the American Republic. And since Athens in the fourth or fifth century BC, there have been four qualities of republics. First of all, what’s called popular sovereignty, that is to say, the power belongs to the people: no king, no potentate, no strong-person. The power of the republic belongs to the people. That’s very important. It sounds like a bumper-strip slogan, but it’s powerful. It’s a powerful idea and has been for 2,500 years. The second thing is what they call civic virtue, and what that meant was citizens owe some of their energy to the maintenance and promotion of the republic. More than just voting, or more even than just volunteering for military service — but engagement and participation in the political issues of the day. Going to town meetings, participating in debates, reading, thinking, staying current and trying to help seek solutions, even at the local level, not necessarily at the presidential level. And then, I mention the sets of the commonwealth, what we have in common, not what we as individuals want, or what our group wants, but what we as Americans have in common. And it’s a lot. It’s transportation systems, it’s natural resources, it’s the environment, it’s national parks and recreation, it’s the military, and the list goes on. If you add up all of the things that belong to all of the people of the United States, its pretty impressive, and it means you have to pay attention to the preservation of that commonwealth. And finally I mentioned resistance to corruption. And those are the four qualities that our founders believed in very strongly, and they believed most strongly in the fourth one. And that’s why I wrote the book.

Westword:  Is there a potential critique of the American Republic, given that such oppressive conditions existed at the founding of the United States, such as slavery and the inability of women to vote? Does this belie the principles that underlie the idea of the Republic?

Well, I deal with those in the book, and I say we have made huge progress in those areas. Not only in the Civil War, which abolished slavery, and all the Civil Rights movements that occurred thereafter, but in the empowerment of women, the increasing protection of the environment, the openness of government: There’s much ability now, at least on CSPAN and so forth, for everyday Americans to see what’s going on in the House or Senate if they care to, and a lot of people do. So, yes, there has been progress, I’m not saying it’s all been downhill. We’ve done very well in many respects.

Civil rights in the ’50s and ’60s we had to do, because we were combatting communism and they were dragging us over the coals in Latin America and Africa and Asia for being a segregationist society. So we couldn’t fight the Cold War in the Third World without achieving greater equality here at home. And as you can see, in the debate over the Confederate flag, we still haven’t gotten it totally right.
But the fact that we’ve made progress in those areas doesn’t mean we’ve also drifted away from some very vital foundational principles. And I make both those arguments.  INTERVIEW LINK

The U.S. Government’s Planned Coup D’etat Of The World

Paul Craig Roberts’ Address to the International Conference on the European/Russian Crisis Created by Washington

I have gotten know Dr. Roberts over the past couple years and have co-authored several articles with him on the manipulation of the precious metals markets.  As a former DC insider, his knowledge and understanding of how Washington, DC operates on the real inside should not be taken lightly or underestimated.  We are extremely fortunate that Dr. Roberts has come forward to expose the truth about what is really going on behind Washington’s “Iron Curtain.”

In my opinion, the neoconservative-controlled avenues of power in DC are far more of a threat posed to the world than was Hitler’s Third Reich.  Why?  At least Hitler was open about what he was doing and why.   The truth is, 99.5% of this country has no clue what the U.S. Government is all about.  But let’s just say that the heat underneath the cauldron of “boiling frogs” is about to be turned up to “high.”

The world should take note that today, right now, Truth is the most unwelcome presence in the Western world. No one wants to hear it in Washington, London, Tokyo, or in any of the political capitals of Washington’s empire…There is always a new lie to keep the fear factor working for Washington’s endless wars and police state measures that enrich the rich and impoverish the poor.

This is a must-read speech delivered by Paul Craig Roberts on threat posed by neoconservative-controlled U.S. Government:

The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the rise of the neoconservatives to power and influence in the US government. The neoconservatives have interpreted the Soviet collapse as History’s choice of “American democratic capitalism” as the New World Order.

Chosen by History as the exceptional and indispensable country, Washington claims the right and the responsibility to impose its hegemony on the world. Neoconservatives regard their agenda to be too important to be constrained by domestic and international law or by the interests of other countries. Indeed, as the Unipower, Washington is required by the neoconservative doctrine to prevent the rise of other countries that could constrain American power.

Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative, penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine shortly after the Soviet collapse. This doctrine is the basis of US foreign and military policy.

The doctrine states:

“Our first objective 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 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.”

Notice that Washington’s “first objective” is not peace, not prosperity, not human rights, not democracy, not justice. Washington’s “first objective” is world hegemony. Only the very confident so blatantly reveal their agenda.

As a former member of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger, I can explain what Wolfowitz’s words mean. The “threat posed formerly by the Soviet Union” was the ability of the Soviet Union to block unilateral US action in some parts of the world. The Soviet Union was a constraint on US unilateral action, not everywhere but in some places. Any constraint on Washington is regarded as a threat.

A “hostile power” is a country with an independent foreign policy, such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have proclaimed. Iran, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, and North Korea also proclaim an independent foreign policy.

This is too much independence for Washington to stomach. As Russian President Vladimir Putin recently stated, “Washington doesn’t want partners. Washington wants vassals.”

The Wolfowitz doctrine requires Washington to dispense with or overthrow governments that do not acquiesce to Washington’s will. It is the “first objective.”

The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in Boris Yeltsin becoming president of a dismembered Russia. Washington became accustomed to Yeltsin’s compliance and absorbed itself in its Middle Eastern wars, expecting Vladimir Putin to continue Russia’s vassalage.

However at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy, Putin said: “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.”

Putin went on to say:
“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law, and independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?”

When Putin issued this fundamental challenge to US unipower, Washington was preoccupied with its lack of success with its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Mission was not accomplished.

By 2014 it had come to Washington’s attention that while Washington was blowing up weddings, funerals, village elders, and children’s soccer games in the Middle East, Russia had achieved independence from Washington’s control and presented itself as a formidable challenge to Washington’s uni-power. Putin blocked Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran.

You can read the rest of this here:  Paul Craig Roberts

Don’t Expect Big Changes To The EU With Regard To Greece

Occam’s Razor is in effect here.  Although it would be a lot of fun to watch the fireworks if Greece were to leave the EU and default on its sovereign debt, I’m not selling tickets to that show.

It’s pretty simple:   If Greece leaves and defaults on its debt, it will trigger the financial nuclear bomb bank credit default swap OTC derivatives daisy chain that is embedded in every big western Too Big To Fail Bank.  My bet is that Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley would be among the first casualties.   The ECB and the Fed can not allow that fuse to be lit.

On the flip side, if Greece were to leave, revert to the drachma and print its way out of debt, it would create massive hyperinflation.  Unlike the U.S. $4 trillion QE, for which most of the money remains contained inside the banking system – for now, anyway – Greece would be dropping helicopters of cash outside its banking system.  The entities receiving that money would turn around and dump it for euros and dollars and the drachma would crash, creating massive hyperinflation and complete chaos in Greece.

Neither side of this issue wants either of those two respective outcomes.   Thus, the proverbial debt can will kicked down the road a bit further and the northern European countries will see some more of their wealth transferred to Greece via some kind of debt restructuring that does not trigger derivatives default events and does not force Greece to print zillions of drachmas…

I was opining to some colleagues yesterday that it seemed like both Greece and the ECB member countries were beginning to move off their initial negotiating stances.  This article confirms my view:   Greek Stocks Surge On ‘Creative’ Debt Plan.