by Mac Slavo
It seems that the only response to terrorism is more surveillance, security, police presence and, of course, war.
Ignoring the lessons of blowback and escalation that have played out for many years now, the major powers of the world are broadcasting fears and preparing to clamp down on society in response to renewed threats from ISIS and other terror organizations.
None of it will stop potential attacks from happening, but it will firmly entrench the authority of police and other officials to suspect anyone and sidestep the law when a threat is felt.
Take a look at how terror and fear have gripped headlines and taken over the news cycle, and ask yourself who benefits from this:
Although officials have admittedly not stopped any attacks from happening, the system is self-assured in its show of force – with SWAT-style police forces clad in all black hunting down suspects and locking down streets in Paris, Belgium and other parts of Europe.
The Daily Mail highlighted some of the most recent threats, along with just one of the several suspicious persons found at or near major security concerns, including the Pentagon, and in a separate case, the LAX airport:
Washington D.C residents were left on edge after an internal police alert about four Middle Eastern-looking men ‘acting suspiciously’ in the Pentagon metro station was leaked just two days after ISIS announced the capital was their next target.
On Monday, a chilling video emerged of ISIS warning that countries taking part in air strikes against Syria will suffer the same fate as Paris.
They also said they would hit the U.S capital next.
The specific threat against the US capital emerged as CIA director John Brennan warned that more atrocities will be committed against the West by the Islamist terror group.
With New York and Washington, D.C. once again named as terrorism targets, police are gearing up in the homeland as well. It is a bittersweet reminder that the atmosphere that enveloped America for many years after 9/11 will not fade away, but remain a part of our culture. Unless someone cuts through this madness, the attacks on civil liberties will only deepen, and the national conversation will be all too centered on false promises of liberty-through-security.
Hillary, for one, who effectively has the Democratic nomination in hand, is using the occasion to vow a hawkish stance on the Middle East, though her previous meddling as Secretary of State did much to stir the violence and chaos that has swept over the region.
“The United States has been conducting this fight for more than a year; it’s time to be begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
“We should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is … but if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air on the ground and as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush Isis’s enclave of terror,” she added.
[…] She also said the US should arm Sunni tribes and Kurds in the country if the government in Baghdad refused to.
But Clinton called for further US special forces to be deployed to Syria too, reiterated her call for a no-fly zone and demanded an “intelligence surge” to allow the airstrikes against Isis to be stepped up. “We have a lot of work to do to really decimate Isil in Iraq and Syria,” she said, using an alternate name for Isis.
The words hold an ominous tone for what may be coming in the next four years of the presidency.
Yet it is not unique to the ambitious Hillary Clinton – indeed, there are few voices in government calling for restraint, and every sign that more attacks are forthcoming on all sides.
These developments in terrorism are textbook Hegelian Dialectic, using problem-reaction-solution to justify a greater military presence in Syria and Iraq, despite nearly a decade and a half of fighting jihad, civil war and supporting “frenemies” across the region with arms, training and financial support.
The founding fathers warned of this, but could scarcely foresee the cynical nature of today’s police state – where the terrorists created by the state have become the population’s worst nightmare.
In one variation of the statement, Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
by Steve LeVine
The Islamic State group reportedly smuggles a large volume of oil via trader routes going almost exclusively through Turkey
The developing crisis over Turkey’s downing of a Russian warplane today (Nov. 24) worsened when Syrian opposition fighters shot down a Russian rescue helicopter searching for two airmen who parachuted out of the stricken jet.
Turkish media reported that at least one and possibly both of the jet pilots are dead. If so, they may be the first western or Russian troops to die in the Syrian conflict. There was no word on the fate of some 10 crewmen said to be aboard the helicopter.
Putin called the Turkish shooting of the jet “a stab in the back by accomplices of the terrorists.” He accused Turkey of aiding the Islamic State (ISIL) by facilitating its sale of oil:
[ISIL] has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling oil. In addition they are protected by the military of an entire nation. One can understand why they are acting so boldly and blatantly. Why they [can] kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they [can] commit terrorist acts across the world, including in the heart of Europe.
The remarks sound harsh even for Putin, who has built a reputation as a tough talker. But the core of his accusations—that Turkey has at best played a conflicted role in the battle against ISIL—is true. It’s just that the West has resisted saying so in order to keep Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on side, in hopes he will keep allowing his NATO allies to use Turkish soil and air space for attacks on Syria.
ISIL reportedly markets most of its oil and refined product locally in Syria and Iraq, but it also smuggles a large volume out of the territories under its control, selling to traders who use routes that almost all go through Turkey. In all, ISIL earns about half a billion dollars a year from such sales, according to estimates made prior to the current escalation of bombing runs on its oil empire by the US and Russia.
Turkey has been crucial to ISIL in other ways: It has served as a gateway for ISIL cash, people, and materiel into Syria. After bombing attacks in Turkey, Erdogan reversed a prior ban on US bombing runs from Turkish soil—but only on the condition that no one got in the way of Turkish forces bombing and shelling Kurds in Iraq and Syria. (Pro-western Kurdish forces have carried out almost the only cohesive ground offensives against ISIL, but Erdogan fears their support for Kurdish activism in Turkey.)
Putin, however, is in no such diplomatic straitjacket because, unlike the West, he has close relationships with both Syria and Iran, and thus can use their territory as a way to fight the Syrian opposition. On Nov. 24, Putin met in Tehran with Iran supreme leader Ali Khamenei.
Russia has escalated bombing runs on Syria since the Nov. 13 ISIL attack on Paris, and the deaths of more than 200 passengers aboard a Russian charter airliner blown up over Egypt on Oct. 31 by homemade ISIL explosives. While many of the most recent Russian attacks have targeted ISIL, Moscow has continued to bomb Syrian opposition groups backed by NATO, including Turkmen militias supported by Turkey.
Even before Putin spoke, traders panicked a bit, sending global stock indexes lower in Asia, Europe, and the US, and bidding up gold and oil prices sharply. At midday in New York, the price for a barrel of Brent crude was back up above $45, a 3% gain on the day.
Steve LeVine, Quartz’s Washington correspondent, writes about the intersection of energy, technology and geopolitics, a juncture of some of the most important and quickly developing events and trends on the planet. Most recently, LeVine founded and ran The Oil and the Glory, a blog on energy and geopolitics at Foreign Policy magazine. He is the author of two books: The Oil and the Glory, a history of oil told through the 1990s-2000s oil rush on the Caspian Sea; a profile of Russia through the lives and deaths of six Russians.
New Eastern Outlook
by Tony Cartalucci
Despite blatant provocation, Russia must continue toward the finish line. With cameras rolling, Turkey has claimed it has shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft. The New York Times in its article, “Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syria Border,” reports that:
Turkish fighter jets on patrol near the Syrian border shot down a Russian warplane on Tuesday after it violated Turkey’s airspace, a long-feared escalation that could further strain relations between Russia and the West.
The escalation is “long feared” not because the Turkish government actually fears that Russian warplanes crossing their border pose a threat to it or its people, but because Russia has ended NATO’s proxy war, a proxy war spearheaded in part by Turkey itself, amid Russia’s joint military operations with Syria against the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) and supporting terrorist factions.
In addition to having a camera rolling as the plane went down in flames, terrorists operating in region had allegedly surrounded the dead pilot shortly after the incident according to Reuters.
While Turkey maintains that it was only reacting in self-defense (or perhaps in defense of terrorists it is sponsoring) – it was against a nation’s planes that it knew had no intention of attacking its territory – and what looks like instead was Turkey targeting planes operating along reoccurring routes and shooting one down once the pieces were in place to maximize the event politically.
Russia Continues Toward the Finish Line
In recent weeks with Russian air support, Syrian troops have retaken large swaths of territory from ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist fighters. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS from its supply lines leading out of Turkish territory.
From there, Syrian troops would move north, into the very “safe zone” the US and its Turkish partners have long-sought but have so far failed to establish within Syria’s borders. This “safe zone” includes a region of northern Syrian stretching from Jarabulus near the west bank of the Euphrates to Afrin and Ad Dana approximately 90-100 kilometers west.
Once Syrian troops retake this territory, the prospect of the West ever making an incursion into Syria, holding territory, or compromising Syria’s territorial integrity would be lost forever. Western ambitions toward regime change in Damascus would be indefinitely suspended.
The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria’s borders. Turkey’s provocation is just such a measure.
Russia’s time, place, and method of retaliating against Turkey is something only the Kremlin will know. But Russia’s actions upon the international stage have been so far thoroughly thought out, allowing Moscow to outmaneuver the West at every juncture and in the wake of every Western provocation.
For Turkey’s government – one that has been consistent only in its constant failure regarding its proxy war against its neighbor Syria, who has been caught planning false flag provocations to trigger wider and more direct war in Syria, and whose government is now exposed and widely known to be directly feeding, not fighting ISIS – the prospect of Russian retaliation against it, either directly or indirectly, and in whatever form will leave it increasingly isolated.
Until then, Russia’s best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations. With Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes’ efforts in Yemen, and in a wider sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region.
The West, already being pushed out of Asia by China, will suffer immeasurably as the world dismantles its unipolar international order, region by region.
As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves. The more emotional their opponent becomes, the easier it is to control the game as it unfolds. Likewise in geopolitics and war, emotions can get one killed, or, be channeled by reason and superior strategic thinking into a plan that satisfies short-term requirements but serves long-term objectives. Russia has proven time and time again that it is capable of striking this balance and now, more than ever, it must prove so again.
New Eastern Outlook
by Steven MacMillan
Similar to a heroin addict, Western nations have a destructive addiction which they are so dependent on, they appear unwilling to give it up. Funding radical terror organisations is the modus operandi of many prominent nations in NATO, with the US, UK and France, playing a prominent role. From the Afghan Mujahideen to the so-called Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS), extremist groups have been used as geopolitical tools by the West for decades.
Over 120 people dead and hundreds injured, the tragic scenes in France have shocked many people in Europe. ISIS has claimed responsibility for terror attacks in other regions of the globe recently, including in Lebanon, where at least 44 people were brutally killed. Dabiq, the magazine of ISIS, has also just published a photo of parts of a homemade bomb that they claim was used in the atrocious terrorist attack on the Russian passenger plane in the Sinai Peninsula, which killed over 220 people.
The West is Complicit in the Paris Attacks
Despite all the grandstanding and rhetoric from the French President and Western leaders, a critical point that needs to be emphasised is that Western governments are complicit in the Paris attacks and any future terror attacks (there will be more). If we put aside for a second the thesis that the Paris attack was a false flag operation or that French intelligence simply allowed it to happen, what can’t be disputed is that Western foreign policy has directly resulted in the rise of terrorism globally, most notably the rise of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra.
These groups would not have the resources and global reach to launch any attacks in the West if they had not been armed, trained and let loose on the Syrian government by NATO members in collusion with regional allies. For those who have been following the proxy war in Syria and the nefarious and insidious policies of the West, this latest attack comes as no surprise.
Here’s just some of the plethora of evidence that Western nations – or the terror pushers – have been supporting extremists to overthrow the Syrian government:
- ‘The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,’ was the assessment of the opposition by the Defense Intelligence Agency in their declassified intelligence report from 2012.
- The French government delivered vast sums of money to the Syrian rebels in 2012, which was used to buy guns and ammunition.
- French President Francois Hollande confirmed in 2014 that France had delivered arms to the Syrian rebels to fight Assad.
- The UK has been pouring millions into the Syrian opposition for years, with reports from 2013 claiming Britain was involved in an operation with other European states and the US to provide the Syrian rebels with 3,000 tons of weapons, sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb in Croatia, to the rebels.
- Roland Dumas, the former French minister of Foreign Affairs, , revealed that the war in Syria was ‘prepared, preconceived and planned’ at least ‘two years before the violence’ erupted in 2011. Dumas said he was approached in the UK by ‘top British officials’ to see if he would participate in “organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria”.
- In 2015, a Swedish national called Bherlin Gildo was accused of fighting for Syrian rebel groups – including Jabhat al-Nusra (read al-Qaeda in Syria) – but the case was quickly dropped after his lawyer’s cleverly argued that British intelligence was involved in arming and providing non-lethal aid to the very same terrorist groups he was allegedly fighting for.
- The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael T. Flynn, revealed in a recent interview that the Obama administration took the ‘willful decision’ to support the rise of the Syrian rebels in 2012, even though Washington knew the opposition was composed of extreme terror groups.
- As Tony Cartalucci reported earlier this year, an ISIS mercenary confessed to Pakistani authorities that he received funds that were routed through the US in order to ‘recruit young people to fight in Syria’.
- The CIA has been shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels for years, whilst selling the practice to the public under the auspices of only supplying (phantom) ‘moderate’ groups.
Considering the policy of NATO in Syria, does anyone actually believe that the strategists in London, Paris, Brussels and Washington, did not foresee blowback from their strategy? It’s hardly rocket science to figure out that if you fund and arm a bunch of crazed terrorists to overthrow a secular government in the Middle East, they are going to carry out terror attacks in other parts of the world.
This leads to the question: Do Western leaders welcome more attacks? Europe has literally created the perfect climate for terror attacks by funding and arming radical groups in Syria, and then flooding Europe with refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa – which of course allows terrorists to enter with ease alongside the innocent people displaced by imperial Western wars and proxy wars. Obviously, the only viable solution to the refugee crisis is the stabilization of the Syrian state and the wider region, meaning the West has to abandon its drive to overthrow Assad and balkanize the nation.
Terror Attacks Fuel the Totalitarian Surveillance State
It is clear that Western countries have been using the hoax of the ‘war on terror’ as a justification to impose totalitarian control domestically, in addition to using it to mobilize public opinion for imperial wars abroad. The US, UK and France, can’t justify a dystopian surveillance state without terror attacks, and these attacks allow the government to impose policies that the population would have never have accepted prior to the crisis. As the Mayor of Chicago and former White House Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel,stated in 2008:
‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that: it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.’
Prior to 9/11, the majority of people in the West would find a pervasive, expensive, illegal and pernicious surveillance state to be a severe violation of their basic rights – including the right to privacy and the rule of law. After 9/11, the majority of people in the West appear to be willing to live in Nazi Germany to supposedly stop these Western-created terrorists from attacking, even though surrendering all your basic rights to the government does not give you safety or security.
Snooping by the National Security Agency (NSA) has intensified dramatically in the US over the past 14 years. According to high-level NSA whistleblower, William Binney, the objective of the agency is ‘total population control’. The surveillance state in the UK hasexpanded at an alarming rate since 2001, and has accelerated since the 7/7 bombings in London. Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks at the beginning of the year in Paris, the French parliament has passed a surveillance bill which allows intelligence agencies to ‘circumvent the need for judicial warrants’. Many privacy advocates have rightly dubbed this the ‘French Patriot Act’, and we can expect the French government to demand even more 1984-style surveillance powers after the latest attacks.
Will the West Halt this Abhorrent Strategy in Syria?
In recent days there have been a few signs that some Western nations may be finally coming to their senses in regards to Syria at least, as European powers appear to be edging towards more rational dialogue. Reports suggest that the UK and Russia may begin to cooperate more closely in regards to Syria after the G20 summit, with Vladimir Putin stating that there is ‘some upturn’ in otherwise frosty relations between the two countries. General Sir David Richards, the former Chief of Defense Staff, also recently urged Britain to work with Assad to defeat ISIS, since attempting to overthrow Assad whilst simultaneously (supposedly) fighting ISIS, is not a ‘plausible’ strategy.
Additionally, Francois Hollande seemed to refrain from outright demonizing the Syrian President in a recent statement, stating that ISIS is the ‘enemy’ in Syria, although his comments are slightly ambiguous. As Sputnik reported, the French President said during an emergency meeting at the French parliament:
‘In Syria, we’re looking for the political solution to the problem, which is not Bashar Assad. Our enemy in Syria is ISIL.’
Certain forces in Washington are one of the major obstacles to peace in Syria, as the US has not seriously been targeting the group they helped create, and are still trying to annihilate the legitimate, secular Syrian government. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, recently stated that the US-led airstrikes against ISIS were ‘hitting selectively, I would say sparingly, and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army.’ He added that Washington’s position ‘seriously weakens the prospects of Syria to remain a secular state.’
Considering the destructive role that the US, Britain and France, have played in Syria and the wider region, it is difficult to believe these countries will truly implement rational and sane policies anytime soon. These powers are just as likely to exploit the recent tragedy to further their belligerent drive for regime change in Syria, and bomb Syrian infrastructure under the guise of fighting ISIS. Hopefully Russian leadership in the world will encourage the West to move in the direction of sanity however.
By Larry Chin
It goes without saying that the atrocities of Paris on November 13, 2015 were unspeakable and sickening. But what is not being said in the wake of the incident—what has been ignored by the mass media—is predictably telling and ominous.
As in the wake of 9/11, the people of the world are being provoked, agitated and mobilized; the fear, horror, rage and shock channeled and shaped into wave of collective vengeance and hatred. Hatred towards what and whom?
The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attacks. But what is the Islamic State?
The fact that remains willfully unacknowledged is that Islamic State is the guided military-intelligence and political apparatus of the West, created, trained, financed, advised and protected by the West and NATO—including France.
The Islamic State and Islamic extremism, including Al-Qaeda, functions on behalf of NATO and Western geostrategic interests.
The intelligence agencies of the West and NATO, led by the CIA, MI-6, the Mossad, the Pakistani ISI, etc. run the Islamic State terrorists.
Jihadist terrorism would not exist without the nurturing of the West, which started with the Cold War, continued into the conflicts in the Balkans, and exploded with 9/11 and the “war on terrorism”, and continues to metastasize with the so-called war on the Islamic State, a rebranded continuation of the same fabricated criminal war of deception.
The West and its architects of war are ultimately responsible for all acts of terrorism perpetrated by their own terrorist shock troops.
“the notion that the Paris attack was an act of retribution and revenge directed against France is questionable and contradictory inasmuch as the evidence confirms that France has been channeling weapons to jihadist rebels in Syria including Al Nusrah and ISIS.”
What if it was “blowback”? What if the Paris terrorists went “rogue” and attacked their own sponsors? What if these terrorist cells were “out of control”? What if these and other groups are simply “going berserk” for “inexplicable reasons”? What if one accepts the (highly unlikely) notion that the CIA, the NSA, French intelligence, the Mossad, etc. —agencies with the most sophisticated spying capabilities on the planet—suddenly and simultaneously lost track of everything? There are red herrings. The West is still responsible for the actions of its assets. The West has not “lost control” of the Islamic State. In fact, the terrorists are being run with remarkable efficiency and effectiveness. The chaos and plunder are not random. The atrocities are designed. Were it not for unwelcome Russian “interference”, the Anglo-American empire would now control more geography than it already does. The Syrian regime arguably might have fallen.
Anglo-American war policy is what has set terrorism loose. It continues to sow, foment and expand terrorism in an unimaginable scale, with no end in sight. The trail of blood leads back to the policy, and its policy makers.
This apocalyptic crisis is not a war “on” terror, but a war “of” terror, committed by terrorists, guided by terrorists, and psychopathic war criminals that operate beyond the reach of law.
Stopping terrorism is not the real agenda. In fact, the opposite: the West’s terrorist armies are key assets used to infiltrate and destabilize, to topple the regimes that NATO seeks to co-opt, invade and conquer. One by one they fall in this manner, from Iraq and Libya to what is unfolding now in Syria, towards the even greater agenda.
The “war on the Islamic State” is not even about the Islamic State, no matter what horrific acts are committed by the ISIS/ISIL killers themselves. The war is, and has always been, a superpower world war pitting the West against Russia and China, everywhere Western geostrategic/resource/corporate interests dictate.
The “spectacular” bloodshed—the unspeakable scale and intensity of the murder—will only become more outlandish and “creative”, as the war planners become increasingly desperate to keep the easily distracted masses in home countries galvanized and fearful, and militantly supportive of the larger war agenda, and deepening involvement on the front lines.
Who benefits? Who benefits from weaponizing France and its people? The same forces that have benefitted from all such atrocities since 9/11. All of the governments that are aiming to destabilize, invade, and conquer the Eurasian subcontinent, including the Middle East and Central Asia, and beyond. All of the governments seeking regime change in Syria: NATO.
The operatic expressions of remorse on behalf of officials hide the realpolitik; the cold, calculating sociopathy that views war as industry, mass murder as a means to “victory”, and slaughter of innocents as “necessary collateral damage”. Three thousand dead on 9/11. A jetliner full of Russian tourists. Tens of thousands across the killing fields of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. More than one hundred snuffed out in Paris. All in a day’s work.
The current line justified by the bloody headlines and propaganda is that even more endless “total war” must be waged. President Hollande now channels Dick Cheney’s “war that will not end in our lifetimes”, and George W. Bush’s “with us or against us”.
Paris proves, according to the propaganda, that time is overdue for regime change in Syria. Syria, the “hotbed” of terrorism, where the Islamic State is “out of control”. The Assad regime has “failed to stop it”; therefore the Assad regime must be “taken out” along with the “terrorists”.
It is no coincidence that Paris has prompted President Barack Obama to promise an escalation of military involvement in Syria. More accurately, the justification to openly invade Syria has been given the green light. The “boots on the ground” invasion of Syria, which is already underway, is now accelerated. Obama undoubtedly wants to finish the job before he leaves office in 2016. A new series of air strikes on Raqqa, Syria began less than 48 hours after the Paris attacks.
What of the Paris attacks themselves? The official narrative is being created. Although it is early in the process, questions about the Paris attack are mounting. The similarities to the false flag operation of 9/11 are abundant.
Quoting the New York Times, it “remains unclear how a plot of such sophistication and lethality escaped the notice of intelligence agencies, both in France and abroad.” But emerging evidence suggests that the intelligence agencies not only knew, but knew enough to prepare for the attacks, which suggests that they were allowed to happen.
France had foreknowledge of imminent attacks and preparations were underway weeks before November 13th, including emergency meetings with CIA director John Brenanan, and unusual advanced preparation of first responders—who happened to be ready in Paris on November 13th.
A massive cyberattack—one beyond the capabilities of the terrorists–took down French security systems prior to and during the incident.
French officials knew the attackers and were tracking them continuously for a significant period, yet did nothing to stop them.
From the orchestration and execution of the atrocities themselves, to the response, to the reaction, the signs of long planning, scripting, choreography, and calculation are evident.
There will be incompetence excuses (“we were caught off guard”), hopelessness and chaos excuses (“we cannot predict nor stop anything”), and other variations. But they fail to explain evidence to the contrary.
According to the CIA operatives, think tank “terrorism experts”, and other warmongering blowhards that spewed nonsense nonstop on CNN all day and all night following the Paris attacks, another “new normal” has been set.
All such brainwashing must be resisted.
The larger context must not be lost amidst chaos and panic.
It is the war itself—its architects as well as its murdering operatives—that must be condemned.
The killers who coldly executed innocent people acted on orders from handlers. The handlers themselves had handlers. And they in turn took orders from individuals occupying high positions of power. It is these individuals who must be identified and exposed; their war agenda resisted and stopped. For the sake of what is left of humanity.
As we’ve noted previously, the War on Cash is accelerating.
In recent months:
1) The SEC and other regulators have implemented legislation allowing Money Market Funds to lock in your cash for up to 10 days during the next financial crisis (meaning you cannot get your money out).
2) The FDIC has implemented legislation permitting it to seize “systemically important” banks and convert their deposits into equity (the dreaded “bail in” used in Cyprus in 2013).
3) JP Morgan and other large banks have begun rejecting large deposits.
4) France has banned any transaction over €1,000 Euros from using physical cash. Spain has already banned transactions over €2,500. Uruguay has banned transactions over $5,000. And on and on.
There is a widespread global campaign to eradicate physical cash. And we’ve now got a connected insider confirming it.
Dr. Harald Malmgren is about as connected as you can get into the Washington DC political elite. He served as a Senior Aide to FOUR separate Presidents as well the Senate Committee on Finance.
This is someone who KNOWS what global elites are thinking about the financial system and US economy.
Dr. Malmgren recently gave an interview to Sinclair and Co that is absolutely shocking.
The very first sentence:
Banks in the US and Europe are trying to develop a cashless transactions system… The concept is to establish a comprehensive ledger for a business or a person that records everything received and spent, and all of the assets held – mortgages, investment portfolios, debts, contractual financial obligations, and anything else of market value including pleasure boats, automobiles, and other machinery.
Governments would very much like such ledgers to exist because they could view everything that is taking place financially in real time, including ability to evaluate net worth, patterns of spending and of earned and unearned income, and of course, an instant assessment of all taxable activities.
We’ve been warning of this for months. However, Dr. Malmgren is the one to “connect the dots” of the key players in this global plan to erase physical cash and financial privacy.
This is not a dreamy idea. Blythe Masters, the JP Morgan architect of organized market trading of modern asset backed securities like mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations…is leading a new business effort to develop a universal cashless system. Not only is she gathering significant investor interest, but the Federal Reserve and various US Government agencies have become keenly interested in the potential usefulness and efficiencies of a universal cashless system.
The above description gets pretty technical, so let’s lay it out in clear, simple language. This is the woman who helped promote and institutionalize the securities that blew up the entire financial system in 2008.
Having left JP Morgan (after a lawsuit in which Masters was accused of lying under oath), Masters is now driving a push to allow Governments to monitor everything you do with your money in real-time.
This is not conspiracy, this is fact. Masters is already meeting with top financial executives to promote the idea. And Central Banks LOVE the idea.
That’s a bold statement, but Masters isn’t the only voice heralding the coming of the blockchain. The Bank of England, in a report earlier this year, calls it the “first attempt at an Internet of finance,” while the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis hails it as a “stroke of genius.” In a June white paper, the World Economic Forum says, “The blockchain protocol threatens to disintermediate almost every process in financial services.”
Anytime the Fed calls something “a stroke of genius” you can guarantee it’s going to be a complete disaster for Main Street. Especially given who’s involved in this mess.
This is just the start of a much larger strategy of declaring War on Cash.
Indeed, we’ve uncovered a secret document outlining how the Fed plans to incinerate savings to force investors away from cash and into riskier assets.
We detail this paper and outline three investment strategies you can implement
right now to protect your capital from the Fed’s sinister plan in our Special Report
Survive the Fed’s War on Cash.
We are making 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.
To pick up yours, swing by….
Phoenix Capital Research
End Of The American Dream
by Michael Snyder
If we truly do want to get rid of ISIS, why aren’t we doing anything about the Islamic governments that are funding them, aiding them and facilitating the sale of their oil? As you will see below, ISIS fighters hop back and forth over the Turkish border with impunity, there are “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members”, and more than $800,000,000 worth of ISIS oil has been sold in Turkey. If these things are true, action must be taken. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey, 92 percent of Americans consider Islamic terrorism to be a serious threat to the United States, and a Washington Post-ABC News survey found that 83 percent of registered voters believe that a terror attack that causes a large amount of casualties inside the United States is likely in the near future. The American people clearly want ISIS to be dealt with, so why isn’t the Obama administration doing anything to go after the state sponsors of such terror?
At this point, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is taking place in Iraq and Syria, and the mainstream media is certainly not being straight with us. That is why I want to share with you some key excerpts from an amazing article that was written by award-winning journalist and best-selling author Dr. Nafeez Ahmed. According to his bio, he has “written for the Independent on Sunday, The Independent, The Scotsman, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Huffington Post, New Statesman, Prospect Magazine, Le Monde Diplomatique, among many others.” His recent article entitled “NATO is harbouring the Islamic State” is a must read. In particular, what he has to say about the relationship between the Turkish government and ISIS is extremely eye opening…
A senior Western official familiar with a large cache of intelligence obtained this summer from a major raid on an ISIS safehouse told the Guardian that “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now ‘undeniable.’”
The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. “The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed,” said the official. “There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both.”
But it isn’t just that Turkey and ISIS have “direct dealings” with each other. In his article, Ahmed goes on to explain that ISIS uses Turkish territory as a home base from which to conduct attacks, and ISIS trucks are able to travel back and forth across the border and throughout Turkey quite freely…
The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the “border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February.” ISIS militants would freely travel “through Turkey in a convoy of trucks,” and stop “at safehouses along the way.”
The former ISIS communication technician also admitted that he would routinely “connect ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions,” adding that “the people they talked to were Turkish officials… ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks.”
Unless the U.S. military and our intelligence agencies are completely blind, deaf and dumb, the Obama administration surely must know all of this already.
So why are they allowing it to happen?
In addition, in his article Ahmed also documented the fact that ISIS has been able to sell more than 800 million dollars worth of oil in Turkey…
Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS’ expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country.
Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million — that was over a year ago.
If ISIS had no place to sell their oil, they would be a far less formidable enemy.
And anyone that believes that the Obama administration does not know exactly where all of that oil is being sold is either completely clueless or is almost unbelievably naive.
Once we understand the role that the U.S. government played in the rise of ISIS, things begin to make more sense. I encourage everyone to check out the excellent video by Ben Swann that I have posted below…
And I think that everything that I have shared above helps to explain why Barack Obama has been so soft on ISIS. In fact, an article posted on the Washington Free Beacon that just came out says that Obama has been blocking 75 percent of all airstrikes against ISIS targets…
U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Needless to say, this is more than just a little bit alarming, and many of our military leaders are absolutely disgusted by Obama’s approach. The following comes from Newsmax…
According to the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., the policy is coming under attack by military leaders who believe it has enabled ISIS to gain strength within the region.
“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said.
“I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
While Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s evaluation of the policy, he noted that it’s not only severely “constricting the U.S.,” but he believes it has “been an absurdity from the beginning.”
Could it be possible that Obama never intended to win the war against ISIS?
Could it be possible that Obama simply wanted to try to “contain” them and use them as a tool to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria?
Could it be possible that he is purposely turning a blind eye to the assistance that the Turks, the Saudis and other Arab governments in the region are giving to ISIS?
If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, then the entire war against ISIS is a complete and total fraud, and Obama should be immediately impeached.
Things are not as they seem, and the American people are not being told the truth.
Please share this article with as many people as you can on Facebook, Twitter and through email. Our government has actively betrayed us, and now Islamic terror is more of a threat to our way of life than ever before.