1.21.2016
Canadian Politics vs. American Politics
To summarize, the greatest symbolic and cultural difference between our two nations today, to Canada’s manifest disadvantage, is illustrated by the emergence of Donald Trump
Canada, the U.S., and the Donald
Source: Canada Free Press
—American Thinker
Canada’s most attention-grabbing personality is the new Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, whom a swooning electorate has just elevated to the highest office in the land. Possessing no relevant business or political experience and no demonstrable leadership qualities apart from name recognition and good looks, he is a dandiprat version of the fatuous nonentity America elected to lead them into a condition of weakness and insolvency. Many in the U.S. are now suffering Obama remorse and reassessing their folly. Eventually Canada, too, may come to its senses, though I wouldn’t bet on it. An Eloi people roistering in a Morlock world does not augur well for their future.
Our misfortune in Canada is that we have—or can have—no one like the Donald striding across the political tarmac. In effect, Trump would have zero chance in a tepid, characterless country like Canada, at any rate, not since the days of our pirouetting, hippie-wannabe PM Pierre Trudeau, Justin’s father—but that was during the psychedelic Sixties. Anyone who requires convincing need only browse our national broadcaster, the CBC, with its panels of hacks, retreads, undistinguished pundits, and its slew of unctuous anchors. Broadly speaking, as Margaret Atwood wrote in Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, Canadians exhibit a “will to lose,” a mournful conviction of the moral superiority of losing, of achieving what she calls a “satisfactory failure.” Hence, Justin Trudeau.
When one considers the competing qualities of burly machismo and
pretty-boy simpering, the preference should be a foregone conclusion. Of
course, if it comes down to a match between big hair and thinning hair,
the outcome will favor the former. (The hairpiece seems to be a
journalistic canard.) Such is the only department where the youthful
charisma of Trudeau has it over the mature brio of Trump. The issue,
however, is not what is on top of one’s head but what is in it—that is,
how one sees the world. In this respect, Trump is head and shoulders
above Trudeau. How can we compare a man born into wealth and privilege, a
trust-fund baby merely inheriting his father’s glamour, whose signal accomplishments involved a stint as a substitute drama teacher and snowboard instructor and two uncompleted university degrees, with a man who turned his father’s business into one of the world’s great financial empires, generating opportunities for untold others? No contest.Canada’s most attention-grabbing personality is the new Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, whom a swooning electorate has just elevated to the highest office in the land. Possessing no relevant business or political experience and no demonstrable leadership qualities apart from name recognition and good looks, he is a dandiprat version of the fatuous nonentity America elected to lead them into a condition of weakness and insolvency. Many in the U.S. are now suffering Obama remorse and reassessing their folly. Eventually Canada, too, may come to its senses, though I wouldn’t bet on it. An Eloi people roistering in a Morlock world does not augur well for their future.
Our misfortune in Canada is that we have—or can have—no one like the Donald striding across the political tarmac. In effect, Trump would have zero chance in a tepid, characterless country like Canada, at any rate, not since the days of our pirouetting, hippie-wannabe PM Pierre Trudeau, Justin’s father—but that was during the psychedelic Sixties. Anyone who requires convincing need only browse our national broadcaster, the CBC, with its panels of hacks, retreads, undistinguished pundits, and its slew of unctuous anchors. Broadly speaking, as Margaret Atwood wrote in Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, Canadians exhibit a “will to lose,” a mournful conviction of the moral superiority of losing, of achieving what she calls a “satisfactory failure.” Hence, Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau is a fantasist-in-office who has so tenuous a grasp on economic reality he actually believes that budgets can balance themselves; Trump, by contrast, a graduate of The Wharton School of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, is a man who understands the bottom line and knows what it takes to ensure prosperity. This is a perfect instance of the distinction between someone whose thinking was formed by patrimonial entitlement and someone whose thinking was shaped by real world exigencies.
The dissemblance between the two men is also evident in their patriotism. Trump wants to unify America; Trudeau is on record suggesting “that Quebec separation could be deemed acceptable given the politics of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.” To curry favor with his Quebec base and to advance his own electoral prospects, he had no compunction raising the spectre of the breakup of the Confederation. In the wake of jihadist attacks in Europe and the U.S., Trump is proposing a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Trudeau is importing between 25,000 and 50,000 improperly vetted “Syrian” refugees, whose impact on the country, economically and domestically, will in the course of time likely approximate Europe’s self-immolating malaise. (Just breaking: a couple of “Mohammeds” shot up a bar in Calgary—a city, by the way, which boasts a Muslim mayor —and a Muslim migrant, his crimes covered up by the MSM, has been convicted of raping ten teenage girls in Montreal.)
The difference is painfully obvious in the international realm as well. Trump would be appalled at Justin Trudeau’s stated refusal to retaliate against ISIS even if Canada were to be attacked. Trudeau believes the best response to Islamic terrorism is to live without fear in a pluralistic, multicultural society—a form of “smart power” idiocy that will ensure the ongoing subversion of the culture and the disintegration of yet another Western society. Not to mince words, the difference between Justin and the Donald is the difference between a flake and a mensch.
Not everyone concurs. National Post columnist Barbara Kay, for example, looks forward to the end of 2016 that “will mark the end of the public careers of the two most humility-void, vainglorious politicians in American history, U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump.” One can emphatically agree with her scathing assessment of Obama, but her disparagement of Trump is surely premature. Kay’s double put-down is a false equivalence, like saying that since cats and dogs are both furry animals, they are identical. It’s no secret that Trump may manifest as too crude a sensibility for some; too brassy, maladroit and plebeian, in particular for the polite commentariat.
Despite sporadic misgivings, as a Canadian I regret that we have no one like the Donald to enliven our politics and to speak hard and bitter truths, to serve us his version of Buckley’s medicine—“it tastes awful but it works”—to assuage our political ailments. Incidentally, Buckley’s is a Canadian concoction, which does not change the fact that the U.S. is a far more dynamic, abrasive and inventive nation than our northern hinterland. (Though the Donald feels that the U.S., like NFL football, has “become soft.”)
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not saying that Trump would make the best possible president, given the current field of GOP candidates. In fact, I find myself edging toward Ted Cruz, whom Rand Paul believes would make an excellent Canadian prime minister. (Cruz was born in Canada of American parents.) What I am saying is that Trump’s stand against the tyranny of political correctness and the dead hand of a corrupt media establishment, his fearless broaching of taboo issues, and his epic personality have finally opened up a much-needed debate on the scourge of Muslim immigration, irresponsible leadership, fiscal extravagance, and regulatory constrictions on business. We could use a man like him to stir the sap in a bland and increasingly progressivist country whose sickly pines, to quote modernist poet A.J.M. Smith, now “lean one way.”
To summarize, the greatest symbolic and cultural difference between our two nations today, to Canada’s manifest disadvantage, is illustrated by the emergence of Donald Trump.
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is The Boxthorn Tree, published in December 2012. Visit his Website at davidsolway.com and his Facebook page here.
1.09.2016
The Military / Professional Sports Complex
The Military / Professional Sports Complex
May 31, 2015
These days it should be painfully obvious that the military treats their veterans like used Kleen-ex. They’re heroes when the corporations trot them off to war, and seem to be disposed of when they return as damaged goods. No amount of “Wounded Warrior” programs run by civilians can keep up with the seemingly endless supply of underemployed young people who are sent to fight useless wars – almost like it was planned that way.
What surprised me was the fact that the Pentagon is actually paying NFL teams to stage huge, nationalistic celebrations of past, present and future carnage. Take a look at this from “Business Insider”:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-pays-the-nfl-millions-to-honor-veterans-at-games-2015-5
The Pentagon paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million to ‘salute troops’
Natasha Bertrand
May 12, 2015,
The NFL reportedly accepted millions of dollars from the defense department over the course of three years in exchange for honoring troops and veterans before games, the New Jersey Star Ledger reports.
The Pentagon reportedly signed contracts with 14 NFL teams — including the New York Jets, the Indianapolis Colts and the Baltimore Ravens — between 2011-2012 stipulating that teams would be paid sums ranging from $60,000-$1 million each (in federal taxpayer money) to pause before the start of games and salute the city’s “hometown heroes,” according to nj.com.
Agreements also include advertising on stadium screens and sideline ‘Coaches Club’ seats for soldiers.
Congress and the President recently imposed strict caps on military spending as part of an austere new budget.
The military has defended the funding it provides to the NFL, stating that it is an effective recruitment tool for soldiers.
“Promoting and increasing the public’s understanding and appreciation of military service in the New Jersey Army National Guard increases the propensity for service in our ranks,” National Guard spokesman Patrick Daugherty told nj.com, referring to the $377,000 the Jets received from the Jersey Guard between 2011-2014.
Other teams that received taxpayer funds include the Cincinnati Bengals ($138,960) Cleveland Browns ($22,500), the Green Bay Packers ($600,000), Pittsburgh Steelers, ($36,000) Minnesota Vikings ($605,000), Atlanta Falcons ($1,049,500), Buffalo Bills ($679,000), Dallas Cowboys ($62,500), Miami Dolphins ($20,000), and St. Louis Rams ($60,000), according to a nj.com breakdown.
New Jersey senator Joe Pennachhio has since called for the teams to donate the money to charity.
“If these teams want to really honor our veterans and service members they should be making these patriotic overtures out of gratitude for free,” Pennachhio told nj.com. “And the millions of dollars that have already been billed to taxpayers should be donated to veterans’ organizations.”
The payments are being criticized by some who say that the practice is not only unethical, but also hypocritical — citing a renewed focus on integrity and transparency, the NFL fined the New England Patriots $1 million and suspended Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for the team’s alleged role in deflating footballs before games.
Many fans are aware that the NFL is a leading recruitment tool for the military — the National Guard advertisements displayed on stadium screens are clearly sponsored content.
But few fans know that the defense department is funneling taxpayer money into the NFL in exchange for veteran tributes.
“The public believes they’re doing it as a public service or a sense of patriotism,” U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) told the Star Ledger. “It leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”
I believe a deeper analysis of this would suggest that these sports events in themselves are an example of a type of mass hypno-programming of the population who get sucked into the spectacle. Much like a Nuremburg Rally of the past, Fans (fanatics) in the stadiums and couch potatoes at home sit on the edge of their seats and scream in unison for the team they support. In reality, that team is “Team USA”.
Flyovers of the most destructive machines of man demonstrating the might of The American Empire, a superpower that drops “American Exceptionalsim” from 30,000 feet – contrast with some proud but broken soldiers planting the stars and stripes in the freshly vacuumed Astroturf. The lines of distinction begin to blur; the fanatic viewers model themselves as the actual athletes in vicarious confusion. At the same time, the athlete is melded into the military soldier, hence the fanatic viewers themselves are transformed into the warrior.
Targeting the hive-mind of millions of viewers is textbook in effectiveness. Already in a heightened state of agitation and anxiety for “the team”, the fanatic viewer is subjected to predictive programming tricks that steer emotions. Forced submission to the authority of the military display, to the military structure of the team, to the actual “combat” on the field and finally to the subliminal advertising through music, Mom and apple pie. The fanatic viewer is a hero, the society at large can kick anybody’s ass, and the State is all-powerful.
Got a shitty job? Unhappy in life? Well Bud Light and cheerleaders will sweep you away – as you consider just how much girls love a guy in camouflage. You’re on the team now, dude.
Chicago Gangs, the King Alfred Plan, and Rex-84
Chicago Gangs and the “King Alfred Plan”
May 31, 2013
Every now-and-then a dark seceret is leaked in a novel or movie that exposes a subject so controversial that people think that it surely must be fiction. Examples can be found in Tom Clancy books or movies such as Robert Redford’s “Three Days of the Condor” and George C. Scott’s “The Formula”.
Here is where we travel down one such road; Senator Mark Kirk (R. Il.) has proposed an unthinkable and seemingly impossible plan to round up as many as 18,000 black men off the streets of Chicago and imprison them.
Raw Story reports:
“Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) on Wednesday accused Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk (R) of proposing an “elitist white boy solution” to gang violence with his plan for the mass arrests of 18,000 gang members in Chicago.
Earlier on Wednesday, Kirk had joined with fellow Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) in calling on Illinois attorney general nominee Zachary Fardon to focus on street gangs and gun violence. But in an interview earlier this month, Kirk had gone even further with a plan to target members of the Gangster Disciples.
“My top priority is to arrest the Gangster Disciple gang, which is 18,000 people,” Kirk told WFLD. “I would like to a mass pickup of them and put them all in the Thomson Correctional Facility.”
The senator proposed that federal agencies — like the ATF, DEA and FBI — work together to charge members of the gang with “drug dealing” and “murdering people, which is what they do.”
Rush reacted to that plan on Wednesday by insisting it was a “sensational, headline-grabbing, empty, simplistic, unworkable approach.”
Rush told the Chicago Sun-Times that Kirk needed to “see the bigger picture” instead of proposing an “upper-middle-class, elitist white boy solution to a problem he knows nothing about.”
“I am really very upset with Mark,” he said.
In a follow-up statement, Rush explained that his colleague’s “current plan does not include the option to create jobs, provide affordable and safe housing, quality health care and improve schools in urban areas, BUT certainly a plan to incarcerate 18,000 black men is elitist.”
——————————————————
This is not the first time such extreme measures have been proposed as a sort of “final solution” to a perceived problem with minorities or dissidents in the U.S. population. Long before today’s far right-wing loons like Glen Beck or Alex Jones warned of government concentration camps, the plan was leaked in a novel and was called “The King Alfred Plan”.
From Wikipedia:
“The King Alfred Plan was a fictional CIA-led scheme supporting an international effort to eliminate people of African descent. Specifically it defined how to deal with the threat of a black uprising in the United States by cordoning off black people into concentration camps in the event of a major racial incident.
The Plan first appeared in John A. Williams’ 1967 novel, The Man Who Cried I Am, a fictionalized account of the life and death of Richard Wright. In the afterword to later editions, Williams compares the King Alfred Plan to intelligence programs devised by J. Edgar Hoover in the 1960s to monitor the movements of black militants.[1] It also bears similarities to rumors in the early 1950s surrounding the McCarran Act, an anti-Communist law, in which political subversives were to be rounded up and placed in concentrations camps during a national emergency.”
Obviously the author, Williams, had knowledge of such government contingency plans, and leaked the fictional version (King Alfred) in his novel. But the dark truth was revealed is a startling portion of the Iran-Contra investigation of gun and drug-running during the Reagan administration. Here is a line of questioning by Jack Brooks in the hearings:
“Transcripts from the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987 record the following dialogue between Congressman Jack Brooks, Oliver North’s attorney Brendan Sullivan and Senator Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the joint Senate-House Committee:[9]
[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.
The plan was called “Rex 84” Or “Readiness exercise 84”. Note that “Rex” also means “King”.
The newspaper article Brooks referred to was in The Miami Herald, July 5 1987 and was titled “Reagan Aides And The Secret Government”. a copy of the original article can be found at this link.
Here is a wikipedia summary of the Rex 84 plan:
Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was an alleged secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the United States federal government to suspend the United States Constitution, declare martial law, place military commanders in charge of state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens who are deemed to be “national security threats”, in the event that the President declares a “State of National Emergency”. The plan states, events causing such a declaration would be widespread U.S. opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad, such as if the United States were to directly invade Central America.[1][2][3][4][5] To combat what the government perceived as “subversive activities”, the plan also authorized the military to direct ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels.[6]
Rex 84 was supposedly written by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was both National Security Council White House Aide, and NSC liaison to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and John Brinkerhoff, the deputy director of “national preparedness” programs for the FEMA. They patterned the plan on a 1970 report written by FEMA chief Louis Giuffrida, at the Army War College, which proposed the detention of up to 21 million “American Negroes“, if there were a black militant uprising in the United States.[1][7] Existence of a master military contingency plan (of which REX-84 was a part), “Garden Plot” and a similar earlier exercise, “Lantern Spike”, were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in an article in CounterSpy.[8]
Louis Giuffrida, the author of the plan to round up “21 million Negroes“, worked for then-Governor Ronald Reagan in California:
“In 1971 he left the Army and organized the California Specialized Training Institute for then California Governor Reagan. The institute trained state employees in emergency management and police in counter-terrorism activities.. It was during this time that Giuffrida became friends with Edwin Meese.
He also served as an advisor on terrorism, emergency management, and other special topics for Governor Reagan. He was eventually promoted to the rank of general in the California National Guard.
Giuffrida was confirmed on May 18, 1981. At the time of his nomination Giuffrida was president of the Specialized Management Services Co. and director of the California Specialized Training Institute.
During his tenure at FEMA, Giuffrida developed much of FEMA’s civil defense programs, including Continuity of Government.
Giuffrida was eventually forced out of the agency in 1985 after it was alleged that he spent government money to build a private residence at FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland.”
Of course, this has indeed happened before; recall the round-up and internment of Japanese-Americans in World War Two.
But what Senator Mark Kirk is proposing is a peacetime round-up of an entire population of young black men, people who have not been provided with any form of opportunity to better their lot in life. In a country as rich as the United States, the power elite have offshored domestic industry and siphoned the wealth of the nation to the upper levels of privilege and power, creating a permanent underclass.
This is also reminiscent of the current theme of the “School-to-prison pipeline”.
This modern concept suggests that law enforcement be embedded directly in our schools. What would normally be minor infractions committed by a student (such as marijuana possession) would lead more directly to incarceration. With that in mind, consider the privatization of the U.S. prison system. There are clear incentives to have those private facilities filled and staffed as fully as possible, with a profit motive for goods and services provided by a new slave-class of prisoners.
Again, from Wikipedia:
“The pipeline can also be critiqued in terms of neoliberalism, the idea that market forces can organize every facet of society. Because prisons can be privatized and run for profit, and traditional public schools cannot, the market favors sending people to prisons rather than schools—particularly if they are not destined to become part of the high-skilled workforce. (As prisoners, people can be compelled to perform labor anyway.) In keeping with this system, school budgets have shrunk while prison budgets have expanded massively, while even within schools more funding goes to police and less to teachers and children.[15]”
————————————–
To date, no such round-up of minority youth has occurred. One would assume that such an incident would create huge public outrage, but that doesn’t mean it could not happen. Or perhaps such a plan like this would be intended to provoke a larger revolt, allowing some form of martial law to be implemented.
The “King Alfred Plan” to round up “American Negroes” morphed into the Rex-84 plan to round up any kind of dissidents, The focus of the plan merely changed, but was actually put into existence during the Reagan administration. It no doubt lies waiting to be enacted today.
1.01.2016
Sons of Light or Sons of Darkness?
Masons: Sons of Light, or Sons of Darkness?
Source: SaintsAlive.com
[See also: ephesians5-11.org]
A “Monitor” is given to every Mason when he is raised to the degree of Master Mason. Under “Declarations of Principles” they state that the Lodge “is a social organization only so far as it furnishes additional inducement that men may forgather in numbers, thereby providing more material for its primary work of education, of worship, and of charity.”
What is the attitude of the Lodge toward a Christian who seeks to become a Mason?
The monitor of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina is entitled THE AHIMAN REZON. It reveals the answer:
“There he stands without our portals, on the threshold of this new Masonic life, in darkness, helplessness, and in ignorance. Having been wandering amid the errors and covered over with the pollutions of the outer and profane world, he comes inquiringly to our doors, seeking the new birth, and asking a withdrawal of the veil which conceals divine truth from his uninitiated sight.” (page 61)
When a man is initiated into Masonry, the Senior Deacon of the Lodge describes him as one “who has long been in darkness, and now seeks the light.”
Would a true Christian allow himself to be described that way? What did Jesus say?
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life..” (John 8:12)
What does Masonry teach about Jesus Christ?
In Mystic Masonry, by J. D. Buck, the following Masonic teaching is found:
“It is far more important that men should strive to become Christs than that they should believe that Jesus was Christ.” (page 62)
“The perfect man is Christ: and Christ is God. This is the birth-right and destiny of every human soul.” (page 86)
What does Masonry teach about salvation?
Lynn Perkins writes in The Meaning of Masonry:
“Therefore Masonry teaches that redemption and salvation are both the power and the responsibility of the individual Mason. Saviors like Hiram Abiff can and do show the way, but men must always follow and demonstrate, each for himself, his power to save himself, to build his own spiritual fabric in his own time and way. Every man in essence is his own savior and redeemer; for if he does not save himself, he will not be saved.” (page 95)
Whom do Masons worship?
Manly Palmer Hall reveals the answer in The Lost Keys of Freemasonry:
“The true Mason is not creed-bound. He realizes with the divine illumination of his lodge that as a Mason his religion must be universal: Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, the name means little, for he recognizes only the light and not the bearer. He worships at every shrine, bows before every altar, whether in temple. mosque or cathedral, realizing with his truer understanding the oneness of all spiritual truth.” (page 65)
What is the source of Masonic Light?
Morals and Dogma, by Albert Pike, was published by the authority of the Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree. Masonry holds an alternate view of Jesus Christ and salvation.
Pike reveals in Morals and Dogma that they hold an alternate view of Lucifer as well. Lucifer is presented as not necessarily evil but, rather an agent of liberty and free will. Pike states that Lucifer is the source of Masonic Light:
“The devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythological and horned form of the God Pan; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” (page 102)
“Lucifer, the Light-Bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!” (page 321)
“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2Cor. 11:14)
“But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! ” (Matt. 6:23)
Will “Christian” Masons have salvation? What did Jesus say?
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. 7:21-23)
What does the Lodge say about Judgment Day?
From the Grand Lodge of Nebraska Monitor & Ceremonies -AF&AM:
“My brother, I now present you with the lambskin or white leather apron…[your covering]…. when you stand before the Great White throne….” (page 18)
(The same text is also found many other monitors, such as the Florida Monitor on page 118, in the Indiana Monitor & Freemason’s Guide on page 56 and in the Kentucky Monitor on page 14.)
The Lodge teaches that its members will stand before God’s final judgment at the Great White Throne judgment! But the Bible clearly teaches, in Revelations, Chapter 20, that the Great White Throne judgment is the judgment of the damned. No Christian will face that judgment but Lucifer wants each Mason to take the stand before God with the lambskin apron as his covering rather than the blood of Jesus Christ.
Are You a “Christian” Mason?
If you consider yourself a Christian and a Mason, will you continue to stand with those who disown Jesus? Will you go willingly to stand before God at the Great White Throne judgment before being cast into the fires of hell with the unbelievers or will you repent of your involvement in Masonry and make Jesus the Light in your life today?
The Bible says:
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. ” (2Cor. 6:17 ; 2Cor. 7:1)
What other opinion really matters? If you have friends or loved ones who are Masons, won’t you plead with them to leave Masonry and accept Jesus as their personal savior? Their salvation is assured only when Jesus is truly the real light of their life.
How can a man call himself a Christian and at the same time be a member of another religion which disowns Jesus Christ and sets up altars to other gods?
“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (1 John 4:2 -7)
“…ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim. And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” (1Kgs. 18:18, 21)
(c) copyright, 2009, all rights reserved
Saints Alive In Jesus
PO Box 1347 Issaquah WA 98027
Saints Alive In Jesus
PO Box 1347 Issaquah WA 98027
What If Putin Is Telling the Truth?
What If Putin Is Telling the Truth?
by F. William Engdahl
15 May 2015
15 May 2015
from
NewEasternOutlook Website
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and
lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University
and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for
the online magazine
"New
Eastern Outlook".
On April 26 Russia's main national TV station, Rossiya 1, featured President Vladimir Putin in a documentary to the Russian people on the events of the recent period including the annexation of Crimea, the U.S. coup d'état in Ukraine, and the general state of relations with the United States and the EU.His words were frank. And in the middle of his remarks the Russian former KGB chief dropped a political bombshell that was known by Russian intelligence two decades ago.
Vladimir Putin stated bluntly
that in his view the West would only be content in having a Russia
weak, suffering and begging from the West, something clearly the
Russian character is not disposed to.
Then a short way into his remarks, the
Russian President stated for the first time publicly something that
Russian intelligence has known for almost two decades but kept
silent until now, most probably in hopes of an era of better
normalized Russia-U.S. relations.
Putin stated that the terror in Chechnya
and in the Russian Caucasus in the early 1990's was actively backed
by the Council of Foreign Relations, the CIA, and western Intelligence services to deliberately weaken
Russia. He noted that the Russian FSB foreign intelligence had
documentation of the U.S. covert role without giving details.
What Putin, an intelligence professional
of the highest order, only hinted at in his remarks, I have
documented in detail from non-Russian sources.
The report has enormous implications to
reveal to the world the long-standing hidden agenda of influential
circles in Washington to destroy Russia as a functioning sovereign
state, an agenda which includes the neo-nazi coup d'état in Ukraine
and severe financial sanction warfare against Moscow.
The following is drawn on my book, "The
Lost Hegemon" to be published soon…
CIA's Chechen
Wars
Not long after the CIA and Saudi
Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the
end of the 1980's, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and
the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the
CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union
where their trained "Afghan Arabs" could be redeployed to further
destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.
They were called Afghan Arabs because
they had been recruited from ultraconservative Wahhabite Sunni
Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and elsewhere
in the Arab world where the ultra-strict Wahhabite Islam was
practiced.
They were brought to Afghanistan in the
early 1980's by a Saudi CIA recruit who had been sent to Afghanistan
named Osama bin Laden.
With the former Soviet Union in total
chaos and disarray,
George H.W. Bush's
Administration decided to "kick 'em when they're down," a
sad error. Washington redeployed their Afghan veteran terrorists to
bring chaos and destabilize all of Central Asia, even into the
Russian Federation itself, then in a deep and traumatic crisis
during the economic collapse of the Yeltsin era.
In the early 1990s, Dick Cheney's
company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin.
They
estimated the region to be "another Saudi Arabia" worth several
trillion dollars on today's market. The U.S. and UK were determined to
keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means.
The first
target of Washington was to stage a coup in Azerbaijan against
elected president Abulfaz Elchibey to install a President more
friendly to a U.S.-controlled Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline,
"the world's most political pipeline," bringing Baku oil from
Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey and the
Mediterranean.
At that time, the only existing oil
pipeline from Baku was a Soviet era Russian pipeline that ran
through the Chechen capital, Grozny, taking Baku oil north via
Russia's Dagestan province, and across Chechenya to the Black Sea
Russian port of Novorossiysk. The pipeline was the only competition
and major obstacle to the very costly alternative route of
Washington and the British and
U.S. oil majors.
President Bush Sr. gave his old friends
at CIA the mandate to destroy that Russian Chechen pipeline and
create such chaos in the Caucasus that no Western or Russian company
would consider using the Grozny Russian oil pipeline.
Graham E. Fuller, an old colleague of
Bush and former Deputy Director of the CIA National Council on
Intelligence had been a key architect of the CIA Mujahideen
strategy.
Fuller described the CIA strategy in the Caucasus in the
early 1990s:
"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power."
The CIA used a dirty tricks veteran,
General Richard Secord, for the operation.
Secord created a CIA
front company, MEGA Oil. Secord had been convicted in the 1980s for
his central role in the CIA's Iran-Contra illegal arms and drugs
operations.
In 1991 Secord, former Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense, landed in Baku and set up the CIA front
company, MEGA Oil. He was a veteran of the CIA covert opium
operations in Laos during the Vietnam War.
In Azerbaijan, he setup
an airline to secretly fly hundreds of bin Laden's al-Qaeda
Mujahideen from Afghanistan into Azerbaijan. By 1993, MEGA Oil had
recruited and armed 2,000 Mujahideen, converting Baku into a base
for Caucasus-wide Mujahideen terrorist
operations.
General Secord's covert Mujahideen
operation in the Caucasus initiated the military coup that toppled
elected president Abulfaz Elchibey that year and installed Heydar
Aliyev, a more pliable U.S. puppet.
A secret Turkish intelligence
report leaked to the Sunday Times of London confirmed that,
"two petrol giants, BP and Amoco, British and American respectively, which together form the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium), are behind the coup d'état."
Saudi Intelligence head, Turki
al-Faisal, arranged that his agent, Osama bin Laden, whom he had
sent to Afghanistan at the start of the Afghan war in the early
1980s, would use his Afghan organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) to
recruit "Afghan Arabs" for what was rapidly becoming a global Jihad.
Bin Laden's mercenaries were used as shock troops by the Pentagon
and CIA to coordinate and support Muslim offensives not only
Azerbaijan but also in Chechnya and, later, Bosnia.
Bin Laden brought in another Saudi, Ibn
al-Khattab, to become Commander, or Emir of Jihadist Mujahideen in
Chechnya (sic!) together with Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev. No
matter that Ibn al-Khattab was a Saudi Arab who spoke barely a word
of Chechen, let alone, Russian.
He knew what Russian soldiers looked
like and how to kill them.
Chechnya then was traditionally a
predominantly Sufi society, a mild apolitical branch of Islam. Yet
the increasing infiltration of the well-financed and well-trained
U.S.-sponsored Mujahideen terrorists preaching Jihad or Holy War
against Russians transformed the initially reformist Chechen
resistance movement.
They spread al-Qaeda's hard-line Islamist
ideology across the Caucasus. Under Secord's guidance, Mujahideen
terrorist operations had also quickly extended into neighboring
Dagestan and Chechnya, turning Baku into a shipping point for Afghan
heroin to the
Chechen mafia.
From the mid-1990s, bin Laden paid
Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab the
handsome sum of several million dollars per month, a King's fortune
in economically desolate Chechnya in the 1990s, enabling them to
sideline the moderate Chechen majority.
U.S. intelligence remained
deeply involved in the Chechen conflict until the end of the 1990s.
According to Yossef Bodansky, then Director of the
U.S. Congressional
Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was
actively involved in,
"yet another anti-Russian jihad, seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces."
Bodansky revealed the entire CIA
Caucasus strategy in detail in his report, stating that U.S.
Government officials participated in,
"a formal meeting in Azerbaijan in December 1999 in which specific programs for the training and equipping of Mujahideen from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon, culminating in Washington's tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and U.S. 'private security companies'... to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing Jihad for a long time… Islamist Jihad in the Caucasus as a way to deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism."
The most intense phase of the Chechen
wars wound down in 2000 only after heavy Russian military action
defeated the Islamists.
It was a pyrrhic victory, costing a massive
toll in human life and destruction of entire cities. The exact death
toll from the CIA-instigated Chechen conflict is unknown. Unofficial
estimates ranged from 25,000 to 50,000 dead or missing, mostly
civilians.
Russian casualties were near 11,000 according to the
Committee of Soldiers' Mothers.
The Anglo-American oil majors and the
CIA's operatives were happy. They had what they wanted: their
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, bypassing Russia's Grozny
pipeline.
The Chechen Jihadists, under the Islamic
command of Shamil Basayev, continued guerrilla attacks in and
outside Chechnya.
The CIA had refocused into the Caucasus.
Basayev's Saudi Connection
Basayev was a key part of the CIA's
Global Jihad.
In 1992, he met Saudi terrorist Ibn al-Khattag in
Azerbaijan. From
Azerbaijan, Ibn al-Khattab brought Basayev to Afghanistan to meet
al-Khattab's ally, fellow-Saudi Osama bin Laden.
Ibn al-Khattab's
role was to recruit Chechen Muslims willing to wage Jihad against
Russian forces in Chechnya on behalf of the covert CIA strategy of
destabilizing post-Soviet Russia and securing British-U.S. control
over Caspian
energy.
Once back in Chechnya, Basayev and
al-Khattab created the International Islamic Brigade (IIB) with
Saudi Intelligence money, approved by the CIA and coordinated
through the liaison of Saudi Washington Ambassador and Bush family
intimate Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
Bandar, Saudi Washington
Ambassador for more than two decades, was so intimate with
the Bush
family that George W. Bush referred to the playboy Saudi Ambassador
as "Bandar Bush," a kind of honorary family member.
Basayev and al-Khattab imported fighters
from the Saudi fanatical Wahhabite strain of Sunni Islam into
Chechnya.
Ibn al-Khattab commanded what were called the "Arab
Mujahideen in Chechnya," his own private army of Arabs, Turks, and
other foreign fighters. He was also commissioned to set up
paramilitary training camps in the Caucasus Mountains of Chechnya
that trained Chechens and Muslims from the North Caucasian Russian
republics and from
Central Asia.
The Saudi and CIA-financed Islamic
International Brigade was responsible not only for terror in
Chechnya. They carried out the October 2002 Moscow Dubrovka Theatre
hostage seizure and the gruesome September 2004 Beslan school
massacre.
In 2010, the UN Security Council published the following
report on al-Khattab and Basayev's International Islamic Brigade:
Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was listed on 4 March 2003... as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for "participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of" Al-Qaida...The Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was founded and led by Shamil Salmanovich Basayev (deceased) and is linked to the Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM)... and the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR)...On the evening of 23 October 2002, members of IIB, RSRSBCM and SPIR operated jointly to seize over 800 hostages at Moscow's Podshipnikov Zavod (Dubrovka) Theater.In October 1999, emissaries of Basayev and Al-Khattab traveled to Usama bin Laden's home base in the Afghan province of Kandahar, where Bin Laden agreed to provide substantial military assistance and financial aid, including by making arrangements to send to Chechnya several hundred fighters to fight against Russian troops and perpetrate acts of terrorism.Later that year, Bin Laden sent substantial amounts of money to Basayev, Movsar Barayev (leader of SPIR) and Al-Khattab, which was to be used exclusively for training gunmen, recruiting mercenaries and buying ammunition.
The Afghan-Caucasus Al Qaeda "terrorist
railway," financed by Saudi intelligence, had two goals.
Beslan
On September 1, 2004, armed terrorists
from Basayev and al-Khattab's IIB took more than 1,100 people as
hostages in a siege that included 777 children, and forced them into
School Number One (SNO) in Beslan in North Ossetia, the autonomous
republic in the North Caucasus of the Russian Federation near to the
Georgia border.
On the third day of the hostage crisis,
as explosions were heard inside the school, FSB and other elite
Russian troops stormed the building.
In the end, at least 334
hostages were killed, including 186 children, with a significant
number of people injured and reported missing. It became clear
afterward that the Russian forces had handled the intervention
poorly.
The Washington propaganda machine, from
Radio Free Europe to The New York Times and
CNN, wasted no time
demonizing Putin and Russia for their bad handling of the Beslan
crisis rather than focus on the links of Basayev to Al Qaeda and
Saudi intelligence.
That would have brought the world's attention to
the intimate relations between the family of then U.S. President
George W. Bush and the Saudi billionaire bin Laden family.
On September 1, 2001, just ten days
before the day of the
World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Saudi
Intelligence head U.S.-educated Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, who
had directed Saudi Intelligence since 1977, including through the
entire Osama bin Laden Mujahideen operation in Afghanistan and into
the Caucasus, abruptly and inexplicably resigned, just days after
having accepted a new term as intelligence head from his King.
He
gave no explanation. He was quickly reposted to London, away from
Washington.
The record of the bin Laden-Bush family
intimate ties was 'buried,' in fact entirely deleted on "national
security" (sic!) grounds in the official U.S.
9-11 Commission Report.
The Saudi background of fourteen of the nineteen alleged 911
terrorists in New York and Washington was also deleted from the U.S.
Government's final 911 Commission report, released only in July 2004
by the Bush Administration, almost three years after the
events.
Basayev claimed credit for having sent
the terrorists to Beslan.
His demands had included the complete
independence of Chechnya from Russia, something that would have
given Washington and the Pentagon an enormous strategic dagger in
the southern underbelly of the Russian Federation.
By late 2004, in the aftermath of the
tragic Beslan drama, President Vladimir Putin reportedly ordered a
secret search and destroy mission by Russian intelligence to hunt
and kill key leaders of the Caucasus Mujahideen of Basayev. Al-Khattab
had been killed in 2002.
The Russian security forces soon discovered
that most of the Chechen Afghan Arab terrorists had fled.
They had
gotten safe haven in Turkey, a NATO member; in Azerbaijan, by then
almost a NATO Member; or in Germany, a NATO Member; or in Dubai - one
of the closest U.S. Allies in the Arab States, and Qatar-another very
close U.S. ally.
In other words, the Chechen terrorists
were given
NATO safe haven...
Russia, the Ukraine, and the CFR
Is Russia Anti-Illuminati?
"It is a riddle,
wrapped in a mystery,
inside an enigma."
That
memorable phrase came from the mouth of Winston Churchill, during a
speech he gave to the British Parliament in 1939, when trying to
describe Russian action.
Today, the characterization of Russia holds no cloud of mystery and its motives are clear.
Today, the characterization of Russia holds no cloud of mystery and its motives are clear.
Prince
Charles and
Hillary Clinton have
compared Russia's President,
Vladimir Putin, to
Adolf Hitler.
President
Obama has declared Russia one of the three major
threats
that face the world today, along with the terrorist group ISIS and
the Ebola disease.
And one only has to look to NATO's twitter page
to find their animosity towards Russia.
But is this hostility
warranted? An obvious "yes" would be said by anyone who accepts
Western media as honest, unbiased journalism when they report on
Russia's actions in Ukraine and its involvement in that crisis.
But if one were to look beyond the Western propaganda, and straight to the facts, one could reasonably conclude that Russia, in a very sticky situation, has acted prudently and sensibly.
But if one were to look beyond the Western propaganda, and straight to the facts, one could reasonably conclude that Russia, in a very sticky situation, has acted prudently and sensibly.
If this is the
case, then,
If one believes
the illuminati is real - that this cult has a
long-term plan for the
world, and has considerable influence over Western governments,
media and military organizations for which to advance that agenda -
then it's likely that the true motive behind the condemnation of
Russia is because of Russia's independence from this group and their
unwillingness to cooperate.
Ukraine Crisis
Like the majority of revolts and revolutions throughout history, the crisis in Ukraine came about due to poor economic conditions.
Like the majority of revolts and revolutions throughout history, the crisis in Ukraine came about due to poor economic conditions.
All
hell broke loose when the President at the time,
Viktor Yanukovych,
in a last minute decision, decided against signing a trade deal with
the EU. This decision angered many of the citizens in the capital of
Kiev and they took to the streets to protest.
The protest quickly
escalated, as protestors begin clashing with police.
This uprising
fed momentum to the opposition party, a right-wing nationalist party
who's minions, a neo-fascist militant group called 'Right Sector',
were the main instigators in clashing with the police. (1)
As the uprising worsened, Yanukovych conceded to the demands of the opposition party and agreed to sign the trade agreement with the European Union. But this wasn't enough to satisfy the Right Sector group, as they stormed the parliament building and overthrew the government, with Yanukovych fleeing to Russia. (2)
As the uprising worsened, Yanukovych conceded to the demands of the opposition party and agreed to sign the trade agreement with the European Union. But this wasn't enough to satisfy the Right Sector group, as they stormed the parliament building and overthrew the government, with Yanukovych fleeing to Russia. (2)
There has always
been tension between the Ukraine nationalists and ethnic Russians
living in Ukraine.
The country used to be part of Russia, under the
old Soviet Union, so there are still many ethnic Russians living in
Ukraine. Seeing the government toppled by extreme nationalists, the
southernmost territory of the country, Crimea, began their paperwork
to legally separate from Ukraine and join Russia. The large majority
of people living in Crimea are ethnic Russians, who speak Russian
and identify themselves as Russian.
So when the government of Crimea
held a referendum on whether to succeed to Russia or stay with
Ukraine, the citizens of Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia,
with over 96% voting to do so. (3)
This vote and result enraged much
of the Western world, as their leaders united in opposition against
Russia, accusing it of violating international law and threatening
the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The issue whether Crimea should be allowed to secede from Ukraine comes down to property rights.
The issue whether Crimea should be allowed to secede from Ukraine comes down to property rights.
Who owns property and land? Is it the
government or the people?
Those who believe in liberty, human rights
and the right to property would argue that the citizens of Crimea
have the right to self-determination, and that the referendum that
the Crimean government held was absolutely legal under law.
The fact
that there were Russian troops in Crimea was not a breach of
international law, considering that years before, Ukraine and Russia
had signed a treaty allowing Russian troops to be stationed in
Crimea in exchange for discounted gas. (4)
Also, Yanukovych, the
legitimate leader of Ukraine, asked Russia for military support in
protecting the citizens after the coup. (5) And with violent,
neo-fascists - fashioning Nazi-like symbols on their uniforms, and
having ultranationalist, anti-Russian views - now in control of the
capital, how could Russia refuse to protect their brothers and
sisters in Crimea?
After witnessing the success of Crimea's referendum, territories in east Ukraine, such as Donesk and Luhansk, started discussing plans to join Russia as well. (6)
After witnessing the success of Crimea's referendum, territories in east Ukraine, such as Donesk and Luhansk, started discussing plans to join Russia as well. (6)
But this was too much for the Ukrainian
government to stomach, and so with support from the West, they
launched a war against the pro-Russian separatists. Since day one,
America has come out in support of the coup that occurred in Ukraine
and hailed it a success for freedom.
Since the beginning of the
civil war with the Russian rebels, the U.S. has supplied Ukraine's
military and supported its newly found government in taking decisive
action against the rebels. And when the new president, Poroshenko,
immediately allowed foreigners to hold positions of office, an
American, Georgian and Lithuanian received positions in the Ukraine
government. (7)
American Natalie Jaresko, former employee of the
U.S.
State Department and head of the Horizon Capital Investment Fund, is
now the new finance minister of Ukraine. (8)
The Attack On Russia
The hypocrisy America is showing by condemning the actions of Russia has to be eroding what little credibility America has left in the world. Here is a country that has over 1000 military bases, in 130 countries and is directly involved in the internal conflicts of 74 nations. (9)
America's imperialistic foreign policy is incredibly
ruthless and destructive all around the world, but as soon as Russia
gets involved with a conflict occurring in its neighboring country,
America objects, and denounces Russia for violating international
law.
Russia hasn't violated international law, but in a world where
America is the loudest voice, it acts as both accuser and judge.
Currently, the more prominent countries that have placed sanctions on Russia are:
Currently, the more prominent countries that have placed sanctions on Russia are:
These sanctions on capital and trade have hurt the
Russian economy.
By putting embargoes on Russia, it has blocked
Russians from exporting their goods to some of their closest trading
partners in Europe and the sanctions on their banks have prevented
them from accessing the credit markets of the West.
Due to the
sanctions, the Russian rouble has steadily declined in value against
the dollar, raising the cost of imports, and thus raising consumer
prices.
But what turned the situation into a full blown crises has been the recent, dramatic drop in the price of oil. Russia's major export is oil and gas, but with a barrel of oil dropping below $60, this has cut into Russia's revenue and because of that, has hurt Russia's economic viability.
But what turned the situation into a full blown crises has been the recent, dramatic drop in the price of oil. Russia's major export is oil and gas, but with a barrel of oil dropping below $60, this has cut into Russia's revenue and because of that, has hurt Russia's economic viability.
Due to the drop in oil prices, speculation in
the currency markets has the Russian rouble tanking, losing 20%
against the dollar in one day - its biggest single day drop since
Russia's currency crisis of 1998 - and losing 60% on the year. (10)
This devaluation has led the Central Bank of Russia to raise its
interest rates to 17%, hoping to prevent more money from leaving
Russia.
The substantial drop in the price of the most important
economic commodity doesn't make much sense in a world where the
majority of governments are printing money. Some have suggested that
the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are working together to drive down the
price of oil to hurt their respective adversaries, Russia and Iran.
(11)
Saudi Arabia has come out and said that they are prepared for
$20, $30 or $40 prices. (12) And thanks to investigative journalist,
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, we know that any market can be subject
to manipulation, by the colluding of the major banks. (13)
It
wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that this recent drop is not the
result of natural market forces but of market manipulation, with the
purpose of hurting Russia more severely than the sanctions.
Recently, Russia's foreign minister has come out and said that the West's goal, with regards to Russia, is regime change. (14)
Recently, Russia's foreign minister has come out and said that the West's goal, with regards to Russia, is regime change. (14)
The
recent sanctions bill signed by President Obama has in it the
authorization to spend $20 million in each of the next three years
to promote democracy, independent news media, uncensored internet
access and anti-corruption efforts in Russia. (15)
This provision
has all the makings of a strategy to change Russia from within,
which has been a strategy America has employed in other countries.
(16)
With the current economic crisis in Russia, the time is ripe
for America to meddle in Russia's domestic affairs and stir up
protests with its people to try and oust the current regime. But
most threatening to Russia is NATO and their military buildup on the
boarders of Russia.
With anti-ballistic missile systems, troops on
the ground and warships in the water, in the eastern European
countries that surround Russia, NATO is just waiting for an excuse
to attack Russia. (17)
Each NATO country, such as Norway, Poland and
Latvia, is in essence, NATO itself.
Russia's Geopolitical
Positions
Russia, on different occasions, has been directly opposed to many of the West's military action around the world.
Russia, on different occasions, has been directly opposed to many of the West's military action around the world.
Back in March of 2003,
Russia declared it would use its veto power, given to all member
nations of the UN security council, to block a U.S. sponsored
resolution that gave Saddam Hussein a March 17th deadline to disarm
before they took action. (18)
Then a couple weeks later, after the
fighting began, President Putin warned the West that they were
making a grave mistake by,
"shaking the foundations of global stability and international law." (19)
But
in Libya, Russia took a
different approach and refrained from voting on the resolution to
create a no-fly zone in Libya.
By not vetoing the UN Security
Council's resolution, it was allowed to pass. A public dispute over
this decision broke out in Russia between, then President Dmitri Medvedev and then Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin, when Putin called
the resolution "deficient and flawed" and compared it to a medieval
crusade. (20)
But since the President of Russia is the
Commander-In-Chief, Medvedev, at the time, was able to override
Putin. But Putin's anger came to a boiling point after Gaddafi was
killed.
In a official visit to Denmark, when asked about the
situation in Libya he said:
"The coalition said destroying Gaddafi was not their goal. Then why bomb his palaces? Now some officials have claim that eliminating him, was in fact, their goal.Who gave them that right? Did he have a fair trial?Returning to the no-fly zone, the bombings are destroying the country's entire infrastructure. When the so called 'civilized world' uses all its military power against a small country, destroying what's been created by generations, I don't know if that's good." (21)
Putin returned to the presidency in 2012, and a year later, when the
U.S. and Britain were calling for airstrikes against Syria, he made
sure Russia didn't make the same mistake twice, and the country
strongly came out against the airstrikes, and this time, together
with China, vetoed the resolution.
Putin even wrote an op-ed piece
in the New York Times, taking his case directly to the American
people as for why the airstrikes were a bad idea. (22)
Russia Today
Russia Today is the state sponsored news network that has gained a loyal following based on the networks ability to broadcast the real news to English, Spanish and Arabic audiences around the globe.
The
stories that are covered are the critical events happening in our
world, but also other important subjects that aren't covered by the
mainstream media.
Covering stories relating to scandal, corruption
and conspiracy, revealing true motives of the people or institutions
involved, has led the network to gain its credibility.
Subjects on
financial corruption, power abuses, corporate misconduct,
environmental concerns, and many others that are seen as too
sensitive to the special interests that own traditional networks, to
be broadcast on Western media.
JPn k
The famous NSA contractor turned whistleblower, Edward Snowden, would face the full wrath of the U.S. government, if given the chance, for his role in revealing to the world the U.S. government's capacity for spying and exactly who they are spying on.
What's
preventing this from happening is that Snowden is currently being
protected by Russia, where he has been given a 3-year residency
after his initial temporary asylum had expired after his first year
staying in Russia.
The Russians are refusing to give him up to the U.S. government after being asked to do so multiple times. Snowden
never planned on staying in Russia. His original plan was to stay in
Hong Kong until they gave him up, and then he decided he would go to
Latin America.
But after the U.S. government revoked his passport,
while he was in Russia, and seeing how the plane of the Bolivian
President was forced to land due to the U.S. government's suspicion
that Snowden was on it, he decided staying in Russia was his best
option. (23)
Winter Olympics
The Winter Olympic games that were held in Sochi this year were very important to Russia.
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and since
then Russia has had to rebuild its country from the ground up. In
the early years, it was very bleak for Russians, as living standards
dropped for many and inflation rose substantially, and corruption
and lawlessness spread throughout the country.
But in 2000, when
Putin became President, he was able to bring order and stability to
Russia, and their economy grew 9 straight years, which raised living
standards for Russians. (24)
Today, Russia has regained its role on
the world stage, and these Olympics were a chance to show the world
a new Russia, in hopes of promoting a more positive image, and
encourage the business class to invest there.
But leading up the
games, there was much paranoia and propaganda with regards to
terrorism. Many Western countries told their athletes not to bring
their families to Russia.
As a result, the world was scared off and
the turnout of spectators and foreign visitors to Russia was greatly
diminished.
Putin Quotes
Vladimir Putin is currently enjoying an approval rating that is unparalleled compared to leaders in the West.
Vladimir Putin is currently enjoying an approval rating that is unparalleled compared to leaders in the West.
He is beloved in
Russia but also has support from all over the world. The reason is
simple: He's straight forward and speaks honestly, with no
reservation for calling it like it is.
Below are just a few of the
many refreshing quotes Putin has said:
"In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries.Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIS manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too.Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it.But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries." (25)"Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions?Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?Let me say that this is absolutely not the case." (25)
"They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it's a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law - better late than never." (26)
"Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right.They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle 'If you are not with us, you are against us.'To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organizations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall." (26)
A World of Unknowns
In the eyes of the awakened and aware observer of the world, the U.S. government is at the head of global tyranny.
Yet its difficult to
find criticism of America's actions from other major powers of the
world, especially in the West. The reason being, these puppet
governments are controlled by the same influence that uses America
as its leading force.
But Russia, a massive country that can't be
easily conquered, has been a voice of criticism and because of that,
has had to face the consequences of being that opposing force.
Now
whether the Georgian War of 2008, the downing of Malaysian flight
MH17, or that mysterious flash of light that lit up the Russian sky,
are the covert, indirect actions taken by this group against Russia,
we don't know.
Or whether both opposing sides, the U.S. and Russia,
are just being used for a greater agenda, we don't know.
All we can
do is look at the evidence we are privy to and base our own
conclusions accordingly.
Sources
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)