The Target Date for America’s Depopulation Has Been Set

The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges

The Internet is filled with revelations of how the global elite want to depopulate humanity by 90%. Landmarks such as the Georgia Guidestones are at the top of the evidence list for proof of this agenda. There is an emerging body of evidence that the Georgia Guidestones are a correct representation of this idea.

Thanks to Ted Turner for making it clear what the globalists truly desire.

Thanks to Ted Turner for making it clear what the globalists truly desire.

Where ever you find a bold new initiative related to the plans of the global elite, you will find documentation arising from various think tank organizations in support of these goals. With regard to the coming forced subjugation of the American population to the “stack and pack” megacities, two important papers, the 3-D: Infrastructure for California’s Future and the National Academy of Public Administration’s Memos to National Leaders: Partnerships as Fiscal Policy, jump to the front of the line in espousing the megacities concept. On August 27, 2014, I exposed the megacities concept in revealing something called the America 2050 plan.

The enslavement of America  has taken center stage and it is indeed called “America 2050“. The plan for America 2050 is to herd Americans into 11 megacities consisting of six million people each totaling 66 million people. Under this plan, there are no provisions for any other population developments. After reporting in the August 27, 2014 article, I thought the target date for the implementation of the megacities plan would be the year 2050 as indicated in the title of the organization which is behind the planning of this concept (the article can read here).

316,000,000 million Americans will change to 66,000,000 megacity dwellers which equals

250,000,000 missing Americans!

Eleven Megacities will house 6 million Americans each in densely populated Agenda 21 settlements.

Eleven Megacities will house 6 million Americans each in densely populated Agenda 21 settlements.


It appears that the timetable for the implementation of the megacities concept and the 300 square foot stack and pack apartments is a lot closer that the year 2050.

If a front group for the CIA, Deagel, is correct, we are about a decade away from this hellish nightmare.



Just who is Deagle? The power and influence of the corporation that you never heard of, is staggering.  This is the modern day Zapata Oil, which was a CIA front corporation run by George H. W. Bush which in turn facilitated much of the Air America “drugs for guns” program in Latin America in the 1980’s.

My sources tell me that Deagel is the same exact kind of organization as Zapata Oil. Deagel ran guns through the Ambassador Chris Stevens and subsequently delivered them to  al-Qaeda in Libya and in Syria at the time of Stevens death. Deagel was intimately involved in Benghazi in ways that will be revealed in a later article. Deagel is not just a gun running/drug running/child sex trafficking organization, they are also  intimately connected with the business as “Open source intelligence links”. This means that Deagel and their partner (affiliations listed below) serve as marketing companies for the CIA and sell intelligence information to the highest bidder. Stratfor and Deagel provide the CIA with a minimum of two degrees of separation from nefarious operations which could taint the U.S. government and in particular, the CIA. These activities will be the topic of a future article. The focus of the remainder of this is article is the destruction and depopulation of the United States.

Deagel is a group that gets their hands dirty and they play both sides of the fence. Please note the publicly available list of Deagel partners, listed below. They do business with the Russian Defense Procurement Agency, but they are largely an American contractor with ties into the U.S. Navy, the NSA and the CIA, through Stratfor. If anyone wanted to make the case that I have, the “Bastard Banksters from Basel” control both sides of the coming WW III for fun and profit, the data trail of Deagel exemplifies this point. From the following information, we get a strong indication of how the U.S. is going to be depopulated. To further examine this possibility, take a look at a partial list of Deagel partners. The following list clearly shows that Deagel is “locked in” when it comes to the power centers on this planet.

A Partial List of Deagel Partners 

Year:  2013

Population:  316 million

Gross Domestic Product: $17 trillion

GDP per capita: $52,838

Budget: $5.8 trillion

Military Budget: $726 billion

Forecast 2025

Population: 69 million

Gross Domestic Product: $921 billion

GDP per capita: $13,328

Military Budget:  $8.0 billion

 Please note the how the changes in U.S. population covering an 11 year period mirror what I wrote in the America 2050 article. The projected and dramatic downward shift in America’s population are nearly identical when one compares the America 2050 documents and the Deagel projections.
There is a another striking projection which should alarm every American. In 2013, the U.S. military budget was $726 billion dollars. However, the projected 2025 projected budget is only $8 billion dollars.  This clearly points to the fact that the CIA, through Deagel, is projecting that the United States is going to be militarily conquered within the next 10 years. The mere $8 billion dollar projected 2025 military budget speaks to a domestic martial law type of occupation force. With this kind of budget, the U.S. would not even be able to engage in regional conflicts.

Who Is Going to Win WW III?

 america destroyed america destroyed

The Deagel documents clearly speak to who the winners and losers of the coming global conflict will be.  In the Deagel document, Russia,China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and India maintain their respective populations or increase their populations by the year. The United States and Britain undergo severe population reductions. 

Common sense dictates that in a global conflict, with its advanced weaponry, that the U.S. would be able to devastate the populations of the aforementioned countries. However, the Deagel projections do not indicate this. Therefore, the only thing that makes any sense would be that the U.S. will fall victim to being sold out by treasonous leadership, thus precipitating its demise. Does this statement bring anyone to mind?

The Method of America’s Demise

With everything I have uncovered over the past two years, I have concluded that America will be thrust into martial law prior to fighting in WW III.  I think it is possible to read between the lines of these reports and conclude that we are speaking about the use of nuclear weapons against the American people. Pathogens such as Ebola may push the U.S. into a state of martial law, but a pandemic will not be part of the final equation, for it were, then we would see sizable increases in the  death curve of the BRICS nations and we see just the opposite. Only the United States and its close allies are going to fall victim, at least in the near-term for depopulation.

I am in the process of receiving new information and will make this public once this is available.

The Common Sense Show

Why I Will Not Submit To Medical Martial Law

by Brandon Smith

bio-warfare soldiers

One of the most dangerous philosophical contentions even amongst liberty movement activists is the conundrum of government force and prevention during times of imminent pandemic. All of us at one time or another have had this debate. If a legitimate viral threat existed and threatened to infect and kill millions of Americans, is it then acceptable for the government to step in, remove civil liberties, enforce quarantines, and stop people from spreading the disease? After all, during a viral event, the decisions of each individual can truly have a positive or negative effect on the rest of society, right? One out of control (or “lone wolf”) citizen/terrorist could reignite a biological firestorm, so, should we not turn to government and forgo certain freedoms in order to achieve the greater good for the greater number?

If the government in question was a proven and honorable institution, then I would say pro-Medical Martial Law arguments might have a leg to stand on. However, this is not the case. In my view, medical martial law is absolutely unacceptable under ANY circumstances, including Ebola, in light of the fact that our current government will be the predominant cause of viral outbreak. That is to say, you DO NOT turn to the government for help when the government is the cause of the problem.

The recent rise of global Ebola is slowly bringing the issue of medical martial law to the forefront of our culture. Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post recently argued in favor of possible restrictions on individual and Constitutional liberties in the face of a viral pandemic threat.

The CDC now argues that in the case of people who may be potential carriers, or even in the case of people who refuse to undergo screenings, it has the legal authority to dissolve all constitutional protections and essentially imprison (quarantine) an American citizen for as long as they see fit to do so.

The Obama Administration is now using militant terminology in reference to Ebola response, including the formation of “Ebola SWAT Teams” for quick reaction to potential outbreak areas.

In typical socialist fashion, the nurses union ‘National Nurses United’ has called for Barack Obama to use “executive authority” to take control of all Ebola response protocols in hospitals across the country. Yet another perpetuation of the myth that more government power is the solution.

And finally, the Department of Defense has been tasked to create a military controlled “quick-strike team” to deal with Ebola within U.S. borders. This team will be under the command of none other than Northcom, apparently trampling the Posse Comitatus Act and setting the stage for the rationalized use of military personnel against U.S. citizens under the guise of pandemic prevention.

It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that medical martial law is being quietly prepared, and that the threat of such measures is not a paranoid conspiracy, but a very real possibility. It should also be noted that such provisions are not only the products of the Obama Administration. It was George W. Bush who first created laws intersecting with the World Health Organization’s pandemic preparedness planning. These laws include the “overrule of existing legislation or (individual) human rights” in order to quell a viral outbreak, and were originally drafted around the potential of an influenza crisis.

It is this kind of executive overreach that has set precedence for states such as Connecticut to announce a tentative state of emergency with medical martial law restrictions.

I discussed in great detail why Ebola works in favor of establishment elites in my article ‘An Ebola Outbreak Would Be Advantageous For Globalists’.

Understand that bureaucrats will come to you with promises of offering a helping hand, hoping that you are afraid enough to accept, but their intentions will not be compassionate. Rather, their intent will be to assert as much dominance over the public as possible during the chaos, and to erase any conception the people may have had in the past that they have inalienable rights.

But going beyond the hidden motives of tyrants, I think it is important to point out that the Center for Disease Control and the federal government in general has already lost all credibility in dealing with Ebola, and therefore, it has lost any authority it may have had in administrating a future response.

Ebola has been officially known to the CDC for over thirty years. Why has the CDC refused for three decades to produce proper care guidelines for hospitals? Medical staff in the U.S. didn’t even receive guidelines when the outbreak in Western Africa was obviously progressing out of control.

Why did the CDC leave Thomas Duncan, the very first U.S. Ebola case, in the hands of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, without proper procedures in place to prevent further infection, and without a CDC team present? The CDC has an annual budget of nearly $7 billion. Where is all of this money going if not to stamp out such threats as Ebola?

The argument presented by the White House, the CDC, and even the World Bank, has been that stopping direct or indirect travel from nations with an Ebola outbreak would be “impractical”, and that such travel bans would somehow “make matters worse”. They have yet to produce a logical explanation as to how this makes sense, but what if we did not need to institute a travel ban? The CDC, with it’s massive budget, could easily establish quarantine measures in infected countries. Anyone wishing to travel outside of these nations would be welcome to do so, as long as they voluntarily participate in quarantine procedures for a set number of days. No quarantine, no plane ticket. Where has the CDC response been in Western Africa?

Why not use minor and measured travel restriction in Africa today, instead of using unprecedented martial law in America tomorrow? It makes no sense, unless, of course, the plan is to allow Ebola to spread…

Why has the White House nominated Ron Klain, a man who knows absolutely NOTHING about Ebola or medical emergency strategies, as the new “Ebola Czar”?

Why has all discussion on Ebola prevention revolved around government measures rather than community measures?  Why has all talk centered on what the government will do AFTER an outbreak occurs, rather than on what can be done to prevent an outbreak in the first place?

The reality is that the federal government does not have any treatments for Ebola that are outside of the knowledge and capabilities of the average medically trained citizen. Meaning, the government and the CDC are NOT needed for a community to handle an Ebola outbreak, if that community is given proper guidelines and strategies in advance. Treatment for Ebola, at least in first world nations, consists primarily of regimented transfusions. These transfusions are a mixture of isotonic saline, electrolytes, and plasma, designed to keep the body supported until it’s immune system can build up a proper defense to the virus. Natural and homeopathic methods can also boost immune system functions making the body resistant to the virus before it is ever contracted. The most effective of all treatments appears to be the transfusion of blood from a recovering patient with anti-bodies into a newly sick patient. This is likely the reason for the quick recovery of infected doctors like Kent Brantly.

The CDC would never be able to coherently organize a large scale program of transfusion initiatives, even if it wanted to. Most hospitals around the country have no isolation wards able to handle even a minor Ebola outbreak. The hospitals that do have facilities are limited to less than a dozen beds. According to the medical workers I have spoken with, most hospitals require a minimum of around 50 health professionals to deal with a single Ebola patient.  In the event of an outbreak larger than a few people per state, the CDC and local hospitals are simply not equipped to react to the problem.  Blood transfusions from recovering donors would be few and far between, unless organized by local citizens working under their own directives.

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration’s own report in 2006 on the possibility of bird flu pandemic that admitted the government is completely unequipped to handle an outbreak of moderate size. The report stated that “all sources of external aid may be compromised during a pandemic,” and that “local communities will have to address the medical and non-medical effects of the pandemic with available resources.” Little has changed in the federal government’s pandemic preparations since the report was written.

This leaves individual communities to either prepare for the worst, or die off while waiting for the government to save them. Self isolation and self treatment are the only practical options.

The greatest danger to American citizens is, in fact, not the Ebola virus, but government reactions to the Ebola virus. Already, several medical outfits around the world are suddenly interested in producing an Ebola vaccination when no one seemed very interested before. This might sound like good news, until you learn the terrible history of modern vaccinations.

Pharmaceutical company Merck was caught red handed faking vaccine efficacy data. Merck’s Gardisil was found to contain DNA fragments of human papillomavirus.

Glaxosmithkline, a major vaccine producer, has been caught repeatedly attempting to bribe doctors and health professionals into promoting their products or outright lying about their effectiveness. Glaxo was caught producing rotavirus vaccinations tainted with a swine virus in 2010. Glaxo has been caught producing vaccines tainted with bacteria and endotoxins.

It is important to point out that Glaxo is also spearheading an Ebola vaccine initiative.

U.S. company Baxter produced a flu vaccination in Austria tainted with both avian flu and swine flu. The mixture just happened to be randomly tested on a group of ferrets by a lab in the Czech Republic. The test animals died. The exposure of this “mix up” was quietly swept under the rug by Baxter and the mainstream media, but reports indicate that if the vaccine had been used on the general population, a terrible pandemic would have erupted.

Beyond the fact that vaccinations have a tendency to cripple our natural immune system and infect patients with the very disease they are meant to prevent, none of these existing companies can be trusted to produce a vaccine that is safe even by traditional pharmaceutical standards (which are very low). If the CDC and the federal government trigger a medical martial law scenario, they will most likely include forced vaccination of the population to maintain “herd immunity”. The bottom line? The use of such vaccines will be a death sentence for many, a death more certain than the contraction of Ebola. In my opinion, Ebola vaccination should be avoided at all costs by the American populace.

I can think of no rationale for government involvement in the treatment of an Ebola outbreak. If it is not pure incompetence on their part that has exacerbated the threat, then even worse, it is a deliberate program of genocide. In either case, no military or CDC “strike teams” should be allowed free reign in our neighborhoods, towns, counties, or states. DHS and FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are also a no go, given FEMA’s track record of dismal disaster response. They CANNOT be allowed to take control of our communities.

The only way for Americans to survive such an event is to cut out government entirely and establish their own medical strategies, as organizations like the Oath Keepers Community Preparedness Teams (CPT) are doing.

If someone wants to voluntarily go to the CDC or FEMA for assistance, then they should be allowed to take that risk. However, medical martial law over all of us in the name of the “greater good” should not be tolerated. The government has proven beyond a doubt that it is not qualified to handle a viral crisis scenario, let alone determine what the “greater good” actually is. I can’t speak for the whole of the Liberty Movement, but as for myself, if a group of hazmat suited thugs decides to chase me down with a syringe, I am relatively certain none of them will live through the encounter.

Will I be accused of aiding the spread of Ebola because of my non-compliance? Of course. Do I care? Not so much. Each individual American will have to make their own decision on this matter in due course. Is it better to conform and risk annihilation at the hands of an ignorant and/or corrupt government, or, to fight back and be labeled a bio-terrorist? With the clear lack of tangible government preventions for outbreak in the U.S., you’ll probably get your chance to find out soon enough.


Who Will Control Your Internet?

The New American
by William F. Jasper

internet control

In late September and early October of this year, huge demonstrations broke out in Hong Kong. The protesters were outraged by the decision of Communist Party leaders on the mainland to stack the deck for elections to Hong Kong’s chief executive post with pro-Beijing lackeys. Day after day, as the “umbrella revolution” in Hong Kong swelled from thousands to hundreds of thousands, China’s infamous “Great Firewall” effectively prevented most Chinese from even learning about the Hong Kong protests. China’s army of Internet censors, ably assisted by software and hardware from Western companies, worked furiously to block and scrub stories, images, and comments about the demonstrations from news sites, blogs, social media, and search engines.

Beginning on October 1, the propaganda organs of the People’s Republic began flooding China’s media — including the regime’s controlled Internet sites and social media — with stories extolling patriotism and images of parades and other events celebrating National Day, the PRC’s great communist holiday. When coverage of Hong Kong finally did appear on mainland television and Internet, it was to falsely present the largely peaceful demonstrations as violent and lawless. The man-on-the-street interviews presented by the Party-controlled media, not surprisingly, presented comments that universally condemned the Hong Kong protests and unanimously supported the “democracy” willed by the party leaders.

But the rigid control exercised by Communist China over the Internet does not merely encompass censorship of truths that the regime finds inconvenient. It also entails tracking down those who dare to dissent from the party line in cyberspace.

“A friend of mine recently tried to access some politically sensitive websites while at an Internet café in a remote, small city in Xinjiang Province,” recounted human rights activist Harry Wu, in Congressional testimony in 2006. “The police quickly showed up to arrest him.” They had been able to track down his friend thanks to the “Golden Shield” program, an integral part of China’s Great Firewall for Orwellian control of the Internet. Wu, who spent 19 years in China’s labor camps, explained that Golden Shield has been built with indispensable assistance from U.S.-based companies. “The project will help prolong Communist rule by denying China’s people the right to information,” Wu testified. “In order to develop the ‘Golden Shield,’ China has utilized the technologies of a number of foreign companies, such as Intel, Yahoo, Nortel, Cisco Systems, Motorola, and Sun Microsystems. The ‘Golden Shield Project’ would not have been possible without the technology and equipment from these companies.” Communist China may be infamous for its Golden Shield and its Great Firewall, but it is far from alone in using draconian police powers to troll, patrol, and censor the Internet. The member states of the United Nations comprise a den of thugs and thieves with atrocious human rights records. Even the governments we are accustomed to deeming more “enlightened” — such as those of the United States and Western Europe — have been revealed, by recent leaks and admissions, to be more than willing to trample the rights of netizens. The National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Defense, FBI, IRS, and other agencies have shown that they have already opened the door for tyrannical abuse of their awesome capabilities to monitor virtually every word and action of every American — not to mention the billions of other human inhabitants of our planet.

Who will control the Internet — and all of our personal and business data, communications, and activities that stream through it? The United Nations? The U.S. government? Multinational corporations? A hybrid consortium of governments, non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, and corporations?

Those were the important questions under discussion and negotiation at the recently concluded Ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which took place September 1-5 in Istanbul, Turkey. Considering the magnitude of the issues involved — privacy, surveillance, cybercrime, national security, intellectual property rights, not to mention trillions of dollars in commerce — the UN-sponsored IGF summit received remarkably little coverage from the mainstream media. A Plenipotentiary Conference of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is taking place in Busan, South Korea, during the last week of October and the first week of November.

It was the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012 (WCIT-12) in Dubai that touched off a worldwide reaction against the UN grab for control over the Internet.

China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and other repressive regimes that already drastically censor and restrict Internet usage, while at the same time using cyberpolice to track and arrest dissidents, have been demanding that control over the Internet be “internationalized” under some sort of multilateral UN apparatus that would give governments Beijing-style controls globally. When the secret text of the ITU’s proposed Dubai “reforms” leaked out in 2012, it was clear that it reflected these statist influences.

On September 22, 2012, the U.S. Senate, in a rare show of unity, by unanimous consent passed a resolution introduced by Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) calling on the U.S. government to oppose United Nations control of the Internet. The U.S. House of Representatives, likewise, approved the same resolution by a 397-0 vote.

Other “stakeholders” — NGOs, corporations, think tanks, and Western governments — have been pushing for a “multistakeholder” mixed form of “global governance” for the Internet that appears, on the surface at least, to be a better alternative. But as is so often the case, surface appearances can be misleading.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration has already begun transferring stewardship of the Internet to a nebulous and evolving multistakeholder system that may prove little different from the UN’s multilateral model. Despite repeated pledges by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other administration spokesmen of commitment to openness, transparency, privacy rights, and freedom of expression on the Internet, the reality is that the administration is moving toward more censorship, surveillance, and repression on the Internet.

On March 14, the Obama administration announced that in October 2015 the United States will relinquish all remaining control over the “root” of the Internet to an obscure, non-profit organization. That group, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), promises to create a new structure that will keep the Internet private, safe, and robust. From the start of the Internet in the early 1990s, a computer genius named Jon Postel managed the Internet from his office at the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California, under the name Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA). When Postel died suddenly in 1998 at age 55, his responsibilities were transferred to ICANN under the control of the Department of Commerce (DoC). But the contract under which ICANN has been operating ends in September 2015, after which ICANN will operate on its own. According to Larry Strickling, the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) inside the DoC, the new ICANN management will not lead to control by the UN or any other international government agency. “I want to make clear,” said Strickling, “that we will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution.”

However, these and other assurances notwithstanding, there is more than ample cause for the freedom-minded to be concerned about the administration’s Internet policy. On October 1, 2011, President Obama signed the global Internet treaty known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which, among other things, sets up international governing and adjudicating bodies and would allow foreign companies to demand that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) remove web content in the United States without any legal oversight. Typical of his modus operandi, President Obama has attempted to implement this treaty as an executive agreement, in clear violation of our Constitution’s requirement of congressional approval. In addition to ACTA, the Obama White House has also been simultaneously championing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) in the Senate, both of which contain dangerous ACTA-style censorship and control provisions. Then, of course, there is Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD 20), which was secretly implemented by President Obama in October 2012, ostensibly as a security directive against cyberattacks. The American people didn’t find out about it until June 2013, when PPD 20 was leaked by Edward Snowden.

But the threat to freedom in cyberspace does not emanate only from the Obama White House and the United Nations. As with virtually every other effort to expand “global governance” over some vital aspect of our lives — energy, air, fresh water, oceans, forests, firearms, education, medicine — there is the usual convergence of socialist, communist, and authoritarian regimes with globalist think tanks, multinational corporations, and tax-exempt foundations, all aiming to centralize control over the Internet. Specifically, leading the charge in this push for control are the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), also known as Pratt House, the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trilateral Commission, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Soros Foundations.

In an essay entitled “The Strategic Significance of the Internet Commons,” former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff describes cyberspace and the Internet as a “global commons” that must come under “global governance.” The article by Chertoff (a Trilateral Commission member) was published in the Summer 2014 issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly, a journal published by the Air Force Research Institute. In it, Chertoff writes:


Cyberspace, much like the high seas, air, outer space, and Antarctica should be viewed as the newest global commons…. Cyberspace is a strategic resource that is essential to today’s global economy yet poses unprecedented risk and vulnerability. Like the development of global governance for the high seas and outer space, cyberspace needs global governance that preserves its freedom and openness while strengthening its security to protect the shared economic and utility value of all nations.


Chertoff & Chatham

Former DHS Secretary Chertoff (who now heads the high-powered Chertoff Group consultancy) is especially fond of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), citing it several times as the model for dealing with the cyberspace global commons. This is revealing, inasmuch as LOST has been a cauldron of controversy for decades, since it would: a) challenge the sovereignty of our inland and coastal waters; b) give the UN pretended legal authority over “all ocean space”; c) give the UN a huge constant revenue stream from seabed mineral rights and sea lane taxes; d) subject our naval operations to UN interference; and much more.

Chertoff seems to speak with authority on this subject by virtue of the fact that he sits on the impressive-sounding Global Commission on Internet Governance. Sounds very official and important, right? So it might be fair to ask who commissioned this commission.

According to a press release from Chatham House on January 22 of this year:


Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House).


The Royal Institute of International Affairs is the British cabal of globalists who serve as the de facto governing class of the U.K., in much the same manner that its New York-based sister house, the Council on Foreign Relations, operates here in the United States.

Bildt serves on the International Advisory Board of the CFR. Another CFR luminary serving on the new Global Commission on Internet Governance is Nobel Prize-winning economist Michael Spence, author of The Next Convergence. And another is Joseph Nye, professor and former dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, former chair of the National Intelligence Council, current executive director at the CFR, and current North American chairman of the Trilateral Commission. As we’ve already noted, Chertoff is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, a very rarified group of one-worlders organized by David Rockefeller (former chairman of the board and current honorary chairman of the CFR, as well as founder and current honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission). The CFR, RIIA, and Trilateral Commission form the top tier of globalist think tanks promoting world government. Notable allied outfits in this effort include the Brookings Institution, Aspen Institute, Peterson Institute, Club of Rome, Club of Madrid, Rand Corporation (of which Bildt is also a trustee), and a host of the big foundations, such as Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Soros, Hewlett, et al.

Not surprisingly, Chertoff’s views concerning Internet governance fit nicely with his un-American views of “homeland security.” In 2012, he co-chaired the Aspen Institute’s Homeland Security Group, which produced a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission.” As to be expected, the Chertoff-led Aspen report advocated for evolution in the direction of centralized, nationalized control of police functions. That is always a given, for in the CFR-RIIA worldview, power — political and economic — must always “evolve” (with plenty of helpful pushes, shoves, and brow beatings by the CFR thought cartel) toward more concentrated and centralized power, first by breaking down checks and balances and transferring authority from the local to the national level, and then from the national to the regional and global levels.

Chertoff is getting an assist in this effort from former CIA Director General Michael Hayden, a CFR member, who is a principal of the Chertoff Group. General Hayden served as a member of the CFR’s Advisory Committee that helped produce the Council Special Report No. 56 entitled “Internet Governance in an Age of Cyber Insecurity.” The report was a project of the CFR’s International Institutions and Global Governance program, an ongoing project that is ever pushing for more centralized, concentrated global government.


Globalists, Socialists Unite

Among the many other key CFR hands in the Internet governance game are Senator John D. “Jay” Rockefeller and technology/investment guru Esther Dyson. Rockefeller is enthusiastic over the internationalizing of the Internet, stating,


Since 1998 the U.S. has been committed to transitioning management of the Internet’s domain name system to an independent entity that reflects the broad diversity of the global Internet community. This is the next phase in this transition.


Esther Dyson served, along with General Hayden, on the Advisory Committee that produced the above-mentioned CFR report. But Dyson’s role goes much deeper — she was the founding chairwoman of ICANN when it was established in 1998 to take over the Internet domain roots. And although she often is described as “an entrepreneur and philanthropist,” like many of her fellow global corporatist elites, she has an affinity for authoritarian (and totalitarian) regimes. Dyson, for instance, is a major investor in Russian tech companies and a big promoter of Skolkovo, Russia’s effort to build a competitor to America’s Silicon Valley.

We reported on Dyson’s infatuation with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin’s sock puppet, in an August 5, 2010 article entitled “‘Breathing Pixie Dust’ Investing in Russia”:


“Maybe I’m breathing the same pixie dust, but there’s real momentum for this,” says Esther Dyson, in a June 25 online article for Foreign Policy magazine reporting on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to California’s Silicon Valley. Dyson, a globally celebrated technology guru, is a major promoter of Skolkovo, the ambitious project near Moscow that Kremlin leaders intend to make into a high-tech research and production center.

A one-time member of the Skolkovo advisory board, Dyson is the founder of EDventure holdings, which has invested heavily in Russian start-up companies. She sits on the advisory board of AmBAR, the American Business Association of Russian-speaking Professionals, which organized a major summit of American venture capital investors in Russia this past May. Dyson and AmBAR also were involved in facilitating Medvedev’s tech-shopping trip to the United States in June.


We also noted in the same article that Dyson had been appointed to the Presidential IT Advisory Council of Bulgaria, by Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov, who, like Putin and so many “former” communists now in power in central and eastern Europe, is a veteran “Chekist,” a member of the secret police. But CFR/RIIA globalists such as Bildt, Dyson, Hayden, Rockefeller, et al., have never had a problem consorting with tyrants.

It is worth noting that the venue chosen by the RIIA for its press release announcing the launch of the Global Commission on Internet Governance was the 2014 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. WEF/Davos is that annual glamorous soirée of globalist billionaires, bankers, butchers, dictators, politicians, and academics where the CFR-RIIA elites of the capitalist world hobnob and network with their communist and socialist counterparts. Thus the subsequent explosion of activity and prop­aganda in favor of “global governance” for the Internet.

The timing of the RIIA announcement at the WEF was not accidental. The organized one-worlders targeted 2014 as the critical  year to advance their agenda to seize the Internet with the NETmundial conference in Brazil in March, the IGF summit in Istanbul in September, and the ITU conference in South Korea in October-November.

At the Istanbul summit, the WEF proposed that its elite “grass tops” membership is the perfect partner for the “grassroots” activist organizations supporting an open, transparent, freedom-promoting Internet. It is noteworthy that “grass tops” is a term the WEF has adopted to describe the cozy relationship that its uber-rich elites enjoy with the street activists.

Alan Marcus, head of IT and telecommunications industries at the World Economic Forum, told IGF participants that the WEF-ICANN NETmundial initiative is intended to “bring our ‘grass tops’ community to the issues of internet governance,” and “bring their resources and identifying solutions and convening coalitions around those solutions to move some of our collective challenges forward.”

Of course, many of the so-called grassroots groups attending the IGF summit are actually “AstroTurf” organizations that already are financial beneficiaries of the WEF “resources” to which Marcus made reference. The WEF is based in Geneva, Switzerland, which makes for easy collaboration between its grasstops members and the multitude of UN agencies headquartered in that city, including the International Telecommunications Union.

The September IGF confab in Istanbul was noteworthy on several other accounts, not the least of which is the irony (or mockery) in selecting Turkey for the venue. After all, the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, embroiled in one scandal after another, has resorted to extreme repressive measures to prevent exposure of its corruption via the Internet and social media. Turkey’s notorious Law No. 5651 on the Struggle Against the Crimes Committed on the Internet has been used to block YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, Blogger, and, reportedly, thousands of other websites. According to the liberal-left Freedom House, the government of Turkey also is “the world’s leading jailer of journalists.”

But the despot pedigree of the IGF conference didn’t begin and end merely with the host country. Befitting an event sponsored by the UN, the Istanbul Internet Governance Forum was presided over by Wu Hongbo, under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Comrade Hongbo, besides representing the UN, ultimately answers to his real bosses in Beijing, the leaders of the Communist Party of China. The communist Beijing regime, of course, is notorious for brutal repression of all human rights, including rigid censorship and aggressive policing of the Internet. Under-Secretary-General Hongbo issued the UN’s official invitation for the IGF confab “on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Ban Ki-moon.

Comrade Hongbo had plenty of help at the IGF from fellow Communist Party members, who attended as “official participants,” as well as members of the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). China’s representation includes Professor Liang Guo of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Lee Xiaodong, CEO of CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center, an agency of China’s Ministry of Information); and Chen Hongbing, China’s permanent representative to the UN office in Geneva. These are the folks that have helped build and maintain China’s shameful “Great Firewall” that the communist regime uses to spy on, censor, restrict, and police Internet usage.

In addition, there is the High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, which has had a huge hand in forming the agenda for the IGF. Among its members is Liu Qingfeng, director of the National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China.

Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin had their representatives at the IGF/Istanbul as well. One of them was Robert Aleksandrovich Schlegel, a member of Russia’s State Duma, where he is deputy chairperson of the Committee on Physical Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs. Schlegel is also a spokesman for the Russian Internet Governance Forum, where his official bio unabashedly admits (or perhaps boasts) that he was press director of the “Nashi” movement, Putin’s version of the Hitler Youth.

So, American taxpayers should be happy to know that Secretary of State John Kerry (CFR) was so impressed with the potential of this conference that he allocated $350,000 to the IGF to boost their “reform” effort.

“As part of the United States efforts to ensure a continued open, interoperable, and secure Internet through global, multistakeholder participation, the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs is providing $350,000 as a one-time contribution for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) from its 2012 International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) budget,” the Department said in a press release.

Lest one may think that the Istanbul IGF conference was a one-off, unique affair, as far as providing a venue that is unfriendly to freedom is concerned, consider the 2012 IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan, hosted by the ultra-repressive regime of Ilham Aliyev. Aliyev inherited his position as “president” from his father, Heydar Aliyev, the KGB chief and Communist Party dictator of Azerbaijan under the old Soviet Union.


Socialist International

Unfortunately, Schlegel, Hongbo, Xiaodong, and others of similar ilk are not rare outliers; they are representative of the prevailing makeup of the UN, the IGF, and the Internet governance “reform” effort. One of the most ominous signals that this UN-led effort is fatally tilted against freedom is the dominance of the process by leaders of the Socialist International, which traces its lineage to the First International founded by Karl Marx.

The Socialist International (SI) is a massive, globe-straddling organization of 168 political parties and organizations from all continents, including 60 member parties that currently are running national governments. Its members are completely at home inside the United Nations and are comfortable collaborating with representatives of communist regimes. In fact, many Communist Parties of the former Soviet bloc have simply renamed themselves (as socialists or democrats) and are now member parties of the SI. Speakers at Socialist International confabs address each other as “comrade,” and the SI still maintains the old Soviet organizational structure, governed at the top by a “Presidium.”

Prominent SI members have dominated many of the UN’s agencies, departments, commissions, and conferences for decades. Currently, former Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson serves as deputy secretary-general at the UN, second only to Ban Ki-moon in the organization’s hierarchy. Eliasson is a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which is a member party of the Party of European Socialists (PES) and the Socialist International.

Estonian President Toomas Ilves serves as chairman of the aforementioned High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms. His Estonian Social Democratic Party is a member party of SI, and when Ilves served as a member of the European Parliament, he sat with the Party of European Socialists group. Also on the Panel is Thorbjørn Jagland, former Norwegian prime minister and leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, an SI member party.

The most significant person in the SI orbit regarding “global governance” of the Internet may be High-Level Panel member Nitin Desai. A former UN under-secretary-general and former secretary-general of the UN’s World Summit for Sustainable Development, Desai has been in the forefront of the globalist effort to place the Internet under “international” control. Desai, who was appointed in 2004 by the UN secretary-general to chair the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), has been an active participant in many SI activities. During the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit on sustainable development, Desai penned an op-ed attacking the United States for failing to jump on board the UN’s global-warming bandwagon. “The American way of life — and, for that matter, the way of life everywhere — has to be up for negotiation,” opined Desai. “This is because climate change is the mother of all externalities — global, long-term and potentially catastrophic in its impact.”

Other high-level Socialist International agents within the UN system include former Irish President Mary Robinson and former prime minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. Robinson, who was previously appointed UN high commissioner for human rights (1997-2002), now serves as UN special envoy for climate change. Brundtland, a former SI vice president and former director general of the UN World Health Organization, now, along with Robinson, also draws a lucrative salary as UN special envoy for climate change.

The Socialist International’s many hands are especially evident in the hijacking of Internet “reform” in the service of “sustainable development,” that favorite all-purpose term the United Nations finds ever useful in its efforts to usurp new powers. In 2003, the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society declared its challenge “to harness the potential of information and communication technology (ICT) to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration.” Those Millennium Development Goals have been the centerpiece of the UN’s plan for global wealth redistribution for the past decade-and-a-half. Naturally, the high-flying, high-living UN plutocrats intend for the dwindling middle classes of the United States and Europe to foot the bill for this trickle-down program, which, incidentally, will never result in any appreciable level of aid actually trickling down to those genuinely in need.

Despite the continuing rhetoric from the Obama administration and many of the leading advocates of the new “multistakeholder governance” system, the entire future of the Internet has been put in jeopardy. Very clearly, many of the top globalists in our government, the corporate world, and the think tank/foundation world are, for the most part (if not entirely), comfortable with the authoritarian/totalitarian regimes that use the Internet to enforce Orwellian conformity and tyranny. That means that actions taken by netizens to influence Congress in the next weeks and months may well determine whether cyberspace will continue to offer a window of freedom for communication and expression, or whether it will become the new tax and surveillance arm of Global Big Brother.

The New American

Political Manipulations with the Price of Oil

Strategic Culture

The drop in oil prices that began at the same time as Islamic State (IS) attacks in Iraq and Syria is impossible to explain with economic factors. The world has long been used to the fact that the market has reacted to every war in the Middle East, where 47 per cent of the world’s ‘black gold’ reserves are concentrated, with a sharp jump in oil prices. That is what happened during the two wars in the Persian Gulf, and that is also what happened when the Americans began their ‘mission to restore democracy’ in Afghanistan. And speculation about a possible military conflict between the US and Iran was accompanied by the expectation of a jump in oil prices of up to $200 a barrel and higher. At present, everything has turned upside down, but for how long? 

When the IS invaded Iraq in June, stock exchange quotations for oil initially began to rise, increasing from $109 to $115 a barrel between 10 and 19 June, but then the invisible hand of the market suddenly seemed to lose its strength. The Islamic State’s military successes in Syrian and Iraqi theatres of war have been marked by a fall in oil prices to their lowest level since November 2010. Further reductions in the price of a barrel of oil have been recorded with each new wave of military activity in the Middle East. Increased airstrikes on Syrian and Iraqi targets by America’s hastily thrown-together coalition and the influx of information on IS plans to invade Lebanon and Jordan have all led to a drop in the price of ‘black gold’. And at the time of the most intensive US air strikes on IS positions in the Syrian town of Kobani (more than 50 airstrikes were carried out over the course of 48 hours between 15-16 October), the price of a barrel even dropped below the $85 level. 

The theory of a new ‘oil conspiracy’ between the US and Saudi Arabia against Russia (and possibly Iran) has a strong hold on the minds of many analysts. For the time being, this predominantly involves guesswork. But then the whole point with conspiracies is that they are difficult to uncover, if the conspiracy is in fact true. On the whole, the anti-Russian focus of possible American-Saudi Arabian speculation on falling oil quotations is noticeable. It must also be remembered, however, that right now, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama’s team is not only knocking together a new military coalition and supplying the American military-industrial complex with orders, it is also preparing for midterm elections to Congress to be held on 4 November, the results of which could clarify the possibility of a ‘changing of the guard’ in the White House in the autumn of 2016. Theories of a US-Saudi conspiracy also contain the idea that oil prices slumped during recent election campaigns in the US, for which there are once again no economic reasons. 

It seems that history is repeating itself. Obama and his Republican opponents are trying to win over voters’ sympathy. For Americans, low petrol prices are much more important than their government’s foreign policy endeavours. The affordability of oil products needs to not only seduce American households, but also stir up business activity. The stakes for the democrats and for Obama personally in the midterm elections are relatively high. If the Republicans take control of both houses, the White House’s current occupant is doomed to become a lame duck for two years until the next presidential elections. The alarm bell for the democrats sounded four years ago during the previous midterm elections to Congress, when members of Obama’s party, who up until that point confidently controlled the upper and lower houses of Congress, lost their advantage in the House of Representatives after losing 63 seats there, and 6 seats in the US Senate. It was the biggest loss of votes for a ruling party in midterm elections since 1938. 

An understanding between the US and Saudi Arabia with regard to the regulation of oil prices using non-economic levers is highly probable. However, Washington knows it should not take it too far. And not just for economic reasons, when the shale oil being extracted from North American oil fields is ruining the companies involved because of the high cost of its production. For the US, it is more important that China is one of the main beneficiaries of the downward trend in the oil market. Do Americans really want to speed up the moment that China becomes the leading global economy, with all the geopolitical consequences that that implies, with their own hands? Or have they become so obsessed with the idea of punishing Russia that its policy of restraining China has lost all urgency? It is neither one nor the other. It seems that after the Congressional elections, Obama’s administration will lose much of its motivation to play around with pushing down prices on the oil market. All the more so since with the approach of the winter season, bear speculation would be excessively costly. 

In the long term, political manipulations with oil prices would also cause major problems for the second alleged conspirator. Saudi Arabia has shouldered most of the expense in the fight against the Islamic State. They are financing the training of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition in the hope that, over time, it will manage to overthrow Bashar Assad’s regime by force. Riyadh is also providing financial support for major arms deals in the region (the contract with France and Lebanon for $3 billion). The largest monarchy of the Persian Gulf also has the burden of its own domestic problems associated with the need to control the growth of radicalism among Saudi Arabians through the use of multi-billion dollar social programmes. All this requires money. But there is no guarantee that the oil monarchy will receive as much as it needs at the prices that have recently been established in the oil market.

Strategic Culture

“No Refusal” Blood Draw Checkpoint Planned for Ohio


Controversial procedure considered a 4th amendment violation by some

Image Credit: YouTube

A “no refusal” checkpoint where drivers will be forced to stop and potentially submit to having their blood taken on the side of the road by law enforcement authorities is planned for Clark County, Ohio tomorrow.

“Every car will be checked to ensure that drivers are not impaired. If there is sufficient probable cause to believe that a driver is operating a vehicle while impaired, law enforcement will seek a blood search warrant from a “neutral and detached magistrate,” reports ABC 22.

The time and location of the checkpoint will not be released until hours before it is set to begin.

Once a search warrant is obtained, a nurse will draw blood to check for alcohol or drugs. It is not specified whether the blood draws will take place on the side of the road or at a nearby jail.

Although the practice of taking blood from motorists suspected of being under the influence has been the law in numerous states for years, many remain unaware of how those who refuse to consent to the procedure are treated.

Last year we highlighted shocking video footage out of Georgia which showed police officers forcibly strapping down citizens accused of drunk driving before putting them in a headlock and having a nurse draw blood.

As the clip shows, even compliant individuals who are showing zero resistance have their heads forcibly pushed down as the blood is taken.

“We all are American citizens and you guys have me strapped to a table like I’m in Guantanamo f***ing Bay,” complains one individual.

Another man screams “what country is this?” as officers hold him down and take his blood without consent.

“Holding down and forcing somebody to submit to this is really intrusive in terms of that level of invasive procedure into someone’s body is ridiculous for investigating a misdemeanor,” Attorney David Boyle told Fox 5 Atlanta, describing the forced blood draws as an “unreasonable search” under the 4th Amendment.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the state to hold down Americans and forcefully withdraw blood. A January 2013 ruling affirmed that a warrant must be obtained for the process, although police could dispense with the warrant requirement in an “emergency”.

As we reported last December, citizens are also being intimidated into participating in so-called “voluntary” drug survey checkpoints, during which private firms working on behalf of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy take DNA samples from motorists by swabbing their cheek.

Evidence clearly indicates that sobriety checkpoints have little to do with saving lives or catching drunk drivers and everything to do with revenue generation. In states like California, the number of vehicles impounded as a result of license violations is seven times higher than the number of drunk driving arrests during checkpoint operations.


Obama’s “Ebola Czar” Thinks Overpopulation Is Top Challenge

The New American
by Alex Newman

world population graph

In addition to having essentially no medical qualifications for the newly invented  “Ebola czarpost aside from serving as a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical firm, attorney and political operative Ron Klain (shown) is under fire after a video surfaced of him declaring that “growing population” — particularly in Africa — was the “top leadership challenge” for the world today. Critics expressed outrage over the comments, especially considering warnings by demographic experts of an upcoming plunge in population caused by a dramatic decline in birthrates across most of the world. But news reports citing insiders suggest that Obama has even bigger plans for Klain within the administration than exploiting the Ebola scare to advance tyranny.

Of course, Klain is hardly alone in holding sordid views on population. In his new job, the controversial figure joins a coterie of other discredited overpopulation zealots and neo-Malthusian crackpots in the administration obsessed with slashing the number of humans — and especially Africans, who have long been the target of government population-control schemes. The latest revelations also came shortly after the anti-population growth fanatics at the United Nations, already under fire for perpetrating forced abortions in Communist China using U.S. taxpayer dollars, unveiled a sweeping and widely criticized plan to reduce the population of Africa.

In a 2008 video-taped interview first highlighted by and promptly picked up by other alternative outlets such as Infowars, Klain, who served as chief of staff to discredited “global-warming” guru and population controller Al Gore, responds to a question from a Georgetown interviewer about the top challenge facing world leaders. Sitting next to his wife Monica Medina, the attorney and former operative for Vice President Joe Biden declared that overpopulation — not starvation, lack of medical care, war, disease, tyranny, genocide, or poverty — was actually the planet’s biggest problem.

“I think the top leadership challenge issue in our world today is how to deal with the continuing, growing population in the world, and all the resource demands it places on the world and burgeoning populations in Africa and Asia that lack the resources to have a healthy, happy life,” Klain explained, echoing a common theme among establishment types who have long publicly expressed their desire to slash the human population under various pretexts. The comments fit nicely with discredited UN “sustainable development” theories about alleged pressure on resources that have little basis in reality.

“We’ve got to find a way to make the world work for everyone,” Klain continued. “Climate change is an issue that impacts that greatly by making it harder for people to live where they live, by causing disruptions, and lack of resources.” Of course, like the gloom-and-doom pseudo-prophecies of the overpopulation fanatics, virtually every prediction surrounding alleged man-made “climate change” — both the global warming and global cooling varieties — has proven to be beyond ridiculous in retrospect.

The new Ebola czar’s former boss, Biden, has also stoked controversy on related issues in the past. For instance, in 2011, the vice president said he “fully understand[s]” the Communist Chinese regime’s brutal “one-child policy.” Despite being barbarically enforced with coerced abortions and other grotesque means, Biden also informed the world that he was “not second-guessing” the regime’s murderous machinations. Instead, as revealed during congressional testimony, the administration is showering taxpayer funds on Planned Parenthood (founded by an anti-black racist and eugenicist) and the UN Population Fund, both of which have been implicated in the commission of forced abortions in China.

More recently, another one of Klain’s former bosses, Al Gore, declared “fertility management” that is “ubiquitously available” to be crucial in stopping alleged global warming. Klain’s views also fit nicely with those of perhaps the most notorious population-control zealot in the administration, Obama’s “Science” Czar John Holdren. In a widely ridiculed 1977 book dubbed Ecoscience, Holdren called for the imposition of what he called a “planetary regime” and “global police force” that would perpetrate forced abortions and mass-sterilization programs via the water supply under the guise of preventing a “crisis” of supposed “overpopulation.”

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society,” Holdren wrote, hiding behind a passive voice while making delusional claims about the U.S. Constitution purportedly authorizing forced abortions and sterilization by his “planetary regime” to control world resources. It was not clear who, other than Holdren and perhaps extreme eugenicists of decades past, had “concluded” that mandatory abortions and sterilizations would be authorized under the U.S. Constitution.

More recently, Holdren, like Gore, has been the subject of intense ridicule for his failed global-cooling predictions of previous decades — with the current “Science czar” having previously warned of a global “ice age” that would kill a billion people. Last winter, Holdren further cemented his position as a laughing stock after contradicting every previous warmist prediction and outlandishly trying to blame record cold temperatures across America on “global warming,” which has been on “pause” for almost two decades. Regardless of warming, cooling, or neither, however, Holdren has never repudiated the draconian views on population control expressed in his book.

But unwarranted hysteria over the number of people on the planet is hardly a new phenomenon in the upper echelons of the U.S. government and foreign-policy establishment either. Former Secretary of State Henry “New World Order” Kissinger, for example, became infamous for his 1974 “National Security Memorandum 200” calling for U.S. taxpayers to fund a planetary depopulation operation under the guise of protecting America’s supposed “national interests.” In the memo, Kissinger, a key globalist front-man who has played a major role in some of the greatest human tragedies of the last five decades, said mass abortion would be required to reduce the population of the Third Word.

At the UN, meanwhile, the population-control zealots are also working hard to slash the number of people on the planet — with much of their scheming funded by U.S. taxpayers and mega-billionaires such as Bill Gates. Earlier this year, The New American reported on a new plot by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Obama administration’s U.S. Agency for International Development to deal with what they referred to as the “challenge” of population numbers in Kenya. Among other schemes, the plan to reduce the population to “desirable” levels involves brainwashing African women to have fewer children, showering the nation with contraception, promoting abortion, and more.

Despite existing largely on the fringe and in the shadows, there has been a powerful establishment-backed movement flourishing for decades that views humans as a disease on the planet. At least one population doomsayer, University of Texas “scientist” Eric R. Pianka, has even publicly advocated using a weaponized Ebola virus to exterminate 90 percent of the human population — receiving a standing ovation from his colleagues. Countless establishment bigwigs — from CNN founder and UN Foundation boss Ted Turner to billionaire financier and globalist architect David Rockefeller — have openly hyped the bogus “overpopulation” myth amid calls for more population-control plots. The demands are generally concealed behind half-baked claims of humanitarian concern but are ghoulish nevertheless.

Like the Obama administration more broadly, Klain’s 2008 interview citing overpopulation as the top leadership issue for the world suggests that the new “Ebola czar” considers U.S. government intervention abroad to be essential. “I think that the days when Americans could just be focused on America and not really be engaged in the world are past us,” he said. “Our economy is too dependent on events overseas, our political system is dependent on events overseas.” In other words, despite being 17 trillion in debt, Washington, D.C., must continue borrowing to meddle in the affairs of other nations — with all of the disastrous fruits such machinations have produced.

Multiple analysts have highlighted other troubling elements of Klain’s background as well. “The new Ebola czar has ties to a secret liberal dark money group and once worked as a lobbyist for a prescription drug company that denied experimental drugs to dying cancer patients,” reported Elizabeth Harrington in the online Washington Free Beacon. Klain was also listed as a trustee for the radical Big Government group “Third Way,” which promotes amnesty, gun control, and other deeply controversial “progressive” plots.

The new Ebola czar serves on the board of the Big Business-funded Big Government outfit known as the Center for American Progress (CAP), too. According to a report in Politico citing “administration insiders,” Klain may be next in line to succeed current Obama “counselor” John Podesta, another extremist who founded and led the CAP and recently worked with the UN on a plan to “profoundly and dramatically” alter the “worldview” of every person on the planet.

Instead of allowing Obama to invent new “czar” positions and pack them with unqualified extremists, Congress ought to be holding hearings, cutting funding for executive-branch abuses, and restraining the administration.

The New American

Saudi Arabia’s Moves in the Oil Market

New Eastern Outlook
by Vladimir Simonov

772786147The situation around the continuing fall in the price of oil continues to be the main problem of the world economy, as well as politics, because we are talking about the well-being and stability of key players such as Russia, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc. Now, attention is primarily focused on Saudi Arabia’s stubborn reluctance to cut oil production. And we can only guess: is it directed against Russia or against the United States? 

Brent oil price has been falling almost non-stop since mid-June this year, when it was a little over $115 per barrel. The decline has already exceeded 20%. For more than two years oil had been trading in the range of $100 – 115 per barrel. Several times the price briefly extended beyond the upper limit of the corridor, and once, in April 2013, fell below $100. This time, things are quite different. The price plummeted below $100 a month ago, and last week remained stable at a benchmark below $90. Moreover, on October 15 alone, it fell by $4 per barrel.

The current situation has started generating conspiracy theories. And most analysts are trying, foremost, to understand the policies of Saudi Arabia, which clearly has no intention to cut production significantly in order to maintain the price of oil. In fact, it is the one that is capable of responding first to any major change in the market situation: it has spare capacity to increase production if the price rises too high; it is able to quickly reduce production because it produces much more than other countries (9.7 million barrels per day). But on October 8, Saudi Arabia unexpectedly lowered the official price at which it sells oil to Asia, which is actually the only region where demand for imported oil is still growing. The Eurozone teeters on the brink of recession and demand there is low, and the shale oil boom in the United States has sharply reduced their dependence on foreign oil supplies. In addition, Canada has been actively purchasing light crude oil in the United States: in July, it comprised 71% of all oil imported by Canada, while the previous year – only 14%. As a result, transportation of oil to the shores of North America has declined significantly (plus Canada has increased its exports of heavy crude oil), and exporters have now launched a real struggle to attract Asian buyers.

Most likely, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is trying to increase or at least maintain its market share, maintaining output and reducing the price for Asia. However, some analysts believe that Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to cut production is politically motivated. After all, one cannot rule out the option that the Saudis have agreed with the United States to strike at Russia in response to its actions in the Ukrainian conflict. Falling oil prices could lead to a serious reduction in budget revenues in Russia. One half of Russia’s budget income is derived from oil and gas exports, and gas price is in turn linked to oil prices (together this comprises two-thirds of the total revenue of Russian exports).

Something very similar has already happened 30 years ago. Then the Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan, which was one of the reasons that prompted Saudi Arabia to reconsider its relations with the United States after the Arab oil embargo of 1973. In the 1980s, Washington asked Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, in the expectation that the price reduction would help the American economy. And besides, the head of the CIA, William Casey, had developed a plan to strike at the Soviet economy by means of sharply declining oil prices. Of course, this was only an additional factor contributing to the degradation of the Soviet economy, which could no longer live without the influx of petrodollars. Moreover, the United States expanded its own oil production, increasing its supply. After the “oil shock” of the mid-1970s, they began to actively develop their production so as to be less dependent on importers. Now, a similar situation is developing: after 2008, the price of WTI crude oil reached $147 per barrel; the United States began a shale boom – first in the gas, and then in the oil sector. Today, the United States oil production has reached the level of 1987, and its growth promotes the formation of an excess supply of oil on the world market. However, today in Russia, although it is also heavily dependent on oil exports, there is a market economy and a floating exchange rate, which should soften the shock of the fall in oil prices.

But another group of experts believe that Riyadh began a covert attack on the shale oil industry of the United States, which, in their view, has undermined the position of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries in the world oil market. A steady decline in oil prices should significantly complicate the work of a number of companies engaged in the labor-intensive extraction of oil in the United States and force them to partially curtail their activity. According to experts, if prices fall to $80, American companies will reduce drilling activity. However, there is another opinion – companies that extract shale oil in the United States today can weather much more serious drops in prices than was recently assumed. The rapid growth in efficiency will reduce the cost of production of shale oil. A drop in the cost of shale oil extraction in the United States means that manufacturers can continue to invest at prices much lower than today. This creates problems for the implementation of the strategy of “punishment” of shale oil extractors by OPEC countries.

Most likely, however, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy, but rather the system of functioning within OPEC. Saudi Arabia has always defined policy within the cartel and often used its influence. Lowering prices, Riyadh sends a signal that maintaining market share is more important than price. If the price falls too low, the Saudis can always cut back production. Now, caring about their own interests, Saudi Arabia is not too concerned about the fact that other manufacturers are suffering losses. But not everyone in the KSA shares this view. On October 14, Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal sent the head of the Ministry of Oil of the kingdom, Ali al-Naimi, and other ministers, an open letter in which he expressed concern about the continuing decline in the cost of and demand for oil, the main export product of the kingdom and a source of replenishment of its budget. The prince writes that he is astonished by comments made by Ali al-Naimi, who, according to media reports, called the risks associated with the fall in oil prices below $100 a barrel – “exaggerated”.

The IMF estimates that the kingdom’s balanced budget is provided by the average price of oil in 2014 at a benchmark of $86.1 per barrel. Alwaleed warns that because of the continuing fall in prices the national budget in 2014 and 2015 would be short by billions of riyals. According to Prince Alwaleed, the development of shale oil projects will not allow Saudi Arabia to reach production at the level of 15 million barrels per day. It is this figure that was set as a target a few years ago. Now the kingdom produces about 12.5 million barrels of oil per day.

But, so far, experts do not see any significant risks to the Saudi economy. Since the beginning of the year, the average price of oil has reached $106 per barrel, and the country has financial reserves that could be harnessed to overcome possible difficulties (Saudi Arabia’s foreign exchange reserves amount to $757 billion). Iran, after Saudi Arabia, also reduced the price of oil for buyers from Asian countries. Beginning in November, Asian buyers will buy Iranian oil for $1 cheaper. This is the biggest discount since November 2008. November deliveries from Iran will go for as low as $96.44 per barrel. Prior to this, oil from Saudi Arabia fell by $1.2 to $90.02 per barrel for Asian buyers. Oil traders expect a new round of reduction in selling prices of Saudi Arabia – in the range of $0.7-1 per barrel.

In any case, we cannot ignore the fact that cheap oil is probably the most serious threat to Russia. Crude oil prices fell by more than 23% since June, which led to a weakening of the ruble and the formation of a “hole” in the state budget. The Russian government has already warned that it will be forced to take more money from the reserves if oil prices and the exchange rate will remain at current levels. In an interview with news agency RIA-Novosti, the Deputy Finance Minister Tatyana Nesterenko, stressed that half of the reserve fund established by the state to protect against fluctuations in energy prices, may have to be used for patching holes in the state budget over the next three years.

Low oil prices almost completely overshadowed news from the southeast of Ukraine, where a fragile cease-fire is maintained, and Russia began to withdraw its troops from the border. After all, in reality, it is low oil prices, rather than Western sanctions which are the cause of a sharp depreciation of the Russian ruble. The ruble remained fairly quiet during the summer, although the sanctions were already imposed. In early August, the ruble fell by 9% against the dual curency basket; it was almost a mirror image of an 8-percent decline in crude oil prices over the same period. The ruble behaves like a classical oil currency. And it continues to fall. In spite of the intervention in the amount of $6 billion from the Central Bank in the last 10 days, the ruble fell again.

Due to Russia’s excessive dependence on oil and natural gas, which account for more than two-thirds of its exports, low energy prices may well cause a recession in the Russian economy in the amount of $2 trillion. Economic growth can be expected to remain in the range of positive values ​​only if the price of oil will remain above $92 – 93 dollars per barrel. At a price of $90 per barrel, the Russian economy will shrink by 0.4% next year, and at $80 per barrel the reduction would be 1.7%.

So, today no one can say whether it is a Saudi-American conspiracy against Russia or the KSA is just trying to protect its interests in the face of shale oil production growth in the United States. According to some experts, the United States also uses Tehran, removing economic sanctions against it, thus reducing the price of oil and thereby weakening the Russian economy. In addition, by manipulating the Iranian authorities, Barack Obama intends to supplant Moscow from the oil and gas market in Europe and around the world. And there is certainly no doubt. With the introduction of sanctions against Moscow in connection with Ukraine, Obama is openly carrying out this task. Releasing Iranian oil on the market after the lifting international sanctions against Iran, in view of the fact that the United States and Saudi Arabia have already increased oil exports, could lead to a drop in oil prices down to $75 – 80 per barrel.

Russia’s budget for 2015 is calculated based on the price of oil set at $90 per barrel. A drop to $75 – 80 per barrel would be a devastating blow for the Russian economy. Besides, from 2016, Iraq plans to begin exporting gas to Europe. This will be the next powerful blow, because 70% of Russian revenues come from the sale of hydrocarbons. With the help of the former Soviet republics (Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan), Iran and Iraq, Washington can certainly count on squeezing Russia’s hydrocarbons out of Europe completely. After that, the construction of the “South Stream” will lose all meaning, not to mention the fact that even Ukraine will be able to get rid of gas supplies from Russia.

Also, we must bear in mind that last week Saudi officials made it clear to market participants that the Kingdom does not exclude the possibility that in the next year or two, the price of oil will be set at $80, but the country is ready for such a scenario, in order to maintain its share of the world oil market. In public statements, the majority of Saudi oil experts do not attach much importance to the so called “shale threat”, but members of the May OPEC meeting discussed this issue and agreed to establish a committee for its thorough analysis. In its latest monthly report, OPEC’s forecast for the daily demand for oil produced by members of the cartel indicates a fall by 250 thousand barrels to 29.61 million barrels in 2014. The organization explained that the expected decline would be caused by the increase in oil supplies from countries outside OPEC, mostly from the United States. So, challenging times lie ahead for Russia until the country extricates itself from its addiction to oil and gas.

Vladimir Simonov, an expert on the Middle East, Ph.D., written especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.

New Eastern Outlook


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,066 other followers

%d bloggers like this: