Monday, September 29, 2014

US in the 21st Century

US Global Power in the 21st Century: Military or Economic Imperialism?

By Prof. James Petras
Global Research, September 29, 2014
Despite vast amounts of imperial data to the contrary, the great majority of writers on imperialism continue to describe and analyze US imperialism strictly in economic terms, as an expansion of “capital accumulation”, “accumulation on a world scale”.
In fact the major and minor US imperial wars have more to do with “capital dis-accumulation”, in the sense that trillion dollar flows have gone out from the US, hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from resource sites have been undermined, markets for exports have been severely weakened and exploitable productive labor has been uprooted. At the same time US imperialist state ‘dis-accumulates capital’, multi-national corporations, especially in the extractive sector are expanding, “accumulating capital” throughout Latin America.
This new configuration of power, the conflicting and complementary nature of 21st century US imperialism, requires that we anchor our analysis in the real, existing behavior of imperial state and extractive capitalist policymakers. The basic premise informing this essay is that there are two increasingly divergent forms of imperialism: military driven intervention, occupation and domination; and economic expansion and exploitation of resources, markets and labor by invitation of the ‘host country’.
We will proceed by examining the choices of imperial strategy, in a historical – comparative framework and the alternatives which were selected or rejected. Through an analysis of the practical decisions taken regarding ‘imperial expansion’ we can obtain insights into the real nature of US imperialism. The study of imperial strategic choices, past and present, state and corporate, requires three levels of analysis: global, national and sectoral.
Global Strategies: US Imperial State and the MNC
US imperial state invested trillions of dollars in military expenditures, hundreds of thousands of military personnel into wars in theMiddle East (Iraq, Yemen, and Syria), North and East Africa (Libya, Somalia), South Asia (Afghanistan) and imposed sanctions on Iran costing the US hundreds of billions in “capital dis-accumulation”.
The US corporate elite, driven out of Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere where US military imperialism was engaged, chose to invest in manufacturing in China and extractive sectors throughout Latin America.
In other words the US imperial state strategists either chose to expand in relatively backward areas (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen) or imposed under-development by destroying or sanctioning lucrative extractive economies (Iraq, Libya, Iran).
In contrast the MNC chose the most dynamic expanding zones where militarist imperialism was least engaged – China and Latin America. In other words “capital did not follow the flag” – it avoided it.
Moreover, the zones where extractive capital was most successful in terms of access, profits and stability were those where their penetration was based on negotiated contracts between sovereign nations and CEO’s – economic imperialism by invitation.
In contrast in the priority areas of expansion chosen by imperial state strategists, entry and domination was by force, leading to the destruction of the means of production and the loss of access to the principle sites of extractive exploitation. US military driven imperialism undermined energy companies’ agreements in Iraq and Libya. Imperial state sanctions in Iran designed to weaken its nuclear and defense capabilities undercut US corporate extractive, public-private contracts with the Iranian state oil corporations. The drop in production and supply in oil in Iraq, Iran and Libya raised energy prices and had a negative impact on the “accumulation of capital on a world scale”.
If imperial state decision-makers had followed the direction of economic rather than military driven policymakers they would have pivoted to Asia and Latin America rather than the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. They would have channeled funds into economic imperialist strategies, including joint ventures, high and medium tech trade agreements, and expanded exports by the high-end manufacturing sector, instead of financing 700 military bases, destabilization campaigns and costly military exercises.
Twentieth century military imperialism stands in stark contrast to late twentieth century economic imperialism. In the mid 1960’s the US announced a vast new economic program in Latin America – the Alliance for Progress which was designed to finance economic opportunities in Latin America via joint ventures, agrarian reform and investments in the extractive sector. The imperial state’s military policies and interventionist policies were designed to secure US business control over mines, banks, factories and agro-business. US backing for the coups in Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay and Peru led to the privatization of key resource sectors and the imposition of the neo-liberal economic model.
US policy in Asia under Nixon was directed first and foremost to opening economic relations with China, expanding trade agreements with Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. The ‘pivot from war’ to free trade led to a boom in US exports as well as imports, in private investments and lucrative profits. Military expenditures declined even as the US engaged in covert operations in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Imperial intervention combined military and economic expansion with the latter dictating policy priorities and the allocation of resources.
The reversal set in with the US military backing of the jihadist extremists in Afghanistan and the demise of the USSR. The former set the stage for the rise of the Taliban to power and the emergence of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. The latter led US imperial strategists to pursue wars of conquest with impunity – Yugoslavia and Iraq during the 1990’s.
Easy military conquests and visions of a ‘unipolar’ world dominated by US military supremacy, encouraged and fostered the emergence of a new breed of imperial strategists – the neo-conservative militarists with closer ties to Israel and its military priorities than to the US extractive petrol capitalists in the Middle East.
Military versus Economic Imperialist at the ‘National Level’
In the post-Cold War period, the competition between the two variants of imperialism was played out in all the nation subject to US intervention.
During the first Iraq war the balance between militarists and economic imperialists was in play. The US defeated Iraq but did not shred the state, nor bomb the oil fields. Sanctions were imposed but did not paralyze oil deals. The US did not occupy Iraq; it partioned the north –so-called“Kurdish” Iraq but left the secular state intact. Extractive capital was actively in competition with the militarist neo-conservatives over the future direction of imperial policy.
The launch of the second Iraq war and the invasion of Afghanistan marked a decisive shift toward military imperialism: the US ignored all economic considerations. Iraq’s secular state was destroyed; civil society was pulverized; ethno-religious, tribal and clan warfare was encouraged. US colonial officials ruled by military fiat; top policymakers with links to Israel replaced oil-connected officials. The militarist “war on terror” ideology replaced free market, free trade imperialism. Afghanistan killing fields replaced the China market as the center of US imperial policy. Billions were spent, chasing evasive guerrillas in the mountains of a backward economy while US lost competitive advantages in the most dynamic Asian markets.
Imperial policymakers chose to align with sectarian warlords in Iraq over extractive technocrats. In Afghanistan they chose loyal ex-pat puppets over influential Taliban leaders capable of pacifying the country.
Extractive versus Military Imperialism in Latin America
Latin American neo-liberalism went from boom to bust in the 1990’s. By the early 2000’s crisis enveloped the region. By the turn of the century US backed rulers were being replaced by popular nationalist leaders. US policymakers stuck by their neoliberal clients in decline and failed to adapt to the new rulers who pursued modified socially inclusive extractivism. The US military imperialists longed for a return of the neo-liberal backers of the “war on terrorism”. In contrast, international multinational extractive corporations were realists – and adapted to the new regimes.
On a global scale, at the beginning of the new millennium, two divergent tendencies emerged. US military imperialism expandedthroughout the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and the Caucuses, while Latin American regimes turned in the opposite direction – toward moderate nationalism, and populism with a strong emphasis on poverty reduction via economic development in association with imperial extractive capital
In the face of these divergent and conflicting trends, the major US extractive multi-national corporations chose to adapt to the new political realities in Latin America. While Washington, the imperial state, expressed hostility and dismay toward the new regimes refusal to back the “war on terror” (military imperialism) the major MNCs, robust embrace of economic imperialism, took advantage of the investment opportunities opened by the new regimes’ adoption of a new extractivist model, to pour billions into the mining, energy and agricultural sectors.
The Specificities of Extractive Imperialism in the Era of “Post Neo-Liberalism”
Extractive imperialism in Latin America has several specific characteristics that sharply demark it from earlier forms agro-mineral imperialism.
(1) Extractive capital is not dominated by a single imperial country-like the Spanish in the 18t century, the British in the 19thcentury or the US in the 20th century. Imperial extractive capital is very diverse: Canadian, US, Chinese, Brazilian, Australian, Spanish, Indian and other MNCs are deeply involved.
(2) The imperial states of the diverse MNC do not engage in “gun boat diplomacy” (with the exception of the US). The imperial states provide economic financing and diplomatic support but are not actively involved in subverting Latin American regimes.
(3) The relative weight of US MNCs, in the new imperial extractivism is much less than it was a half century earlier. The rise of diverse extractive MNC and dynamism of China’s commodity market and deep financial pockets have displaced the US, the IMF and WB and established new terms of trade with Latin America.
(4) Probably the most significant aspect of the new imperial extractivism is that its entry and expansion is by invitation. The Latin American regimes and the extractive MNCs negotiate contracts – MNC entry is not unilaterally imposed by an imperial state. Yet the ‘contracts’ may result in unequal returns; they provide substantial revenues and profits to the MNC; they grant large multi –million acre tracts of land for mining or agriculture exploitation; they obligate the national state to dispossess local communities and police/repress the displaced. But they also have allowed the post-neo-liberal state to expand their social spending, to increase their foreign reserves, to eschew relations with the IMF, and to diversify their markets and trading partners.
In regional terms extractive imperialism in Latin America has “accumulated capital” by diverging from the military imperialism practiced by the US in other regions of the world political- economy. Over the past decade and a half, extractive capital has been alliedwith and relyies both on post-neoliberal and neoliberal regimes against petty commodity producers, indigenous communities and other anti-extractive resistance movements. Extractive imperialists do not rely on ‘their’ imperial state to quell resistance- they turn to theirnational political partners.
Extractive imperialism by invitation also diverges from the military imperial state in its view toward regional organizations. US military imperialism placed all its bets on US centered economic integration which Washington could leverage to political, military and economic advantage. Extractive capital, in the great diversity of its ‘national identity’, welcomed Latin American centered integration which did not privilege US markets and investors.
The predominance of economic imperialism, in particular the extractive version, however, needs to be qualified by several caveats.
US military imperialism has been present in several forms. The US backed the military coup in Honduras overthrowing the post neo-liberal Zelaya government; likewise it supported an “institutional coup” in Paraguay.
Secondly, even as MNC corporations poured capital into Bolivian mining and energy sectors, the US imperial state fomented destabilization activity to undermine the MAS government. And was defeated and the agencies and operatives were expelled. The crucial issue in this, as well as other, instances is the unwillingness of the MNC’s to join forces with the military imperialists, via boycotts, trade embargoes or disinvestment. Clearly the stability, profitability and long-term contracts between the Bolivian regime and the extractive MNC counted for more than their ties to the US imperial state.
US military imperialism has expanded its military bases and increased joint military exercises with most Latin American armed forces. Indoctrinated military officials can still become formidable potential allies in any future ‘coup’, if and when the US “pivots” from the Middle East to Latin America.
US military imperialism in its manifest multiple forms, from bankrolling NGO’s engaged in destabilization and street riots in Venezuela, to its political support of financial speculators in Argentina and rightwing parties and personalities in Brazil, has a continuous presence alongside extractive imperialism. The success of the latter and the eclipse of the former are based in part on two contingentcircumstances. The US serial wars in the Middle East divert attention away from Latin America; and the commodity boom fuels the growth of extractive capital. The economic slowdown in China and the decline of commodity prices may weaken the regimes in opposition to US military imperialism.
Paradoxically the weakening of the ties between the post-neo-liberal regimes and extractive imperialism resulting from the decline of commodity prices is strengthening the neo-liberal socio-political forces allied with US military imperialism.
Latin America’s Right Turn: The Co-Habitation of Extractive and Military imperialism?
Throughout Latin America the post-neoliberal regimes which ruled for the better part of a decade and a half face serious challenges – from consequential social opposition at the micro-level and from aggressive political-economic elites at the macro-level. It is worthwhile to survey the prospects for a return to power of neo-liberal regimes allied with military imperialism in several key countries.
Several factors are working in favor of a return to power of political parties and leaders who seek to reverse the independent and inclusive policies of the post neoliberal power bloc.
First the post-neo-liberal regimes development strategy of depending on foreign extractive capital, perpetuated and strengthened the economic basis of imperialism: the ‘colonial style’ trade relation, exporting primary commodities and importing finished goods, allowed the agro-mineral elites to occupy key positions in the politico-social structure. With the decline in commodity prices, some post-neoliberal regimes are experiencing fiscal and balance of payments shortfalls. Inflation and cuts in social expenditures adversely affect the capacity of the post-neo-liberal regimes to retain popular and middle class electoral support.
The divergences between post-neoliberals and economic imperialism are accentuating with return of the neoliberal right. The agro-mineral sectors perceive an opportunity to rid themselves of their power and revenue sharing agreements with the state and to secure even more lucrative arrangements with the advance of the neo-liberal right which promises tax and royalty reductions, deregulation and lower wage and pension payments.
Secondly, the post-neo-liberal regimes’ alliances with the building , construction, and other bourgeois sectors, was accompanied by corruption involving pay-offs, bribes and other illicit financial transactions designed to finance their mass media based electoral campaigns and patronage system which ensured electoral majorities. The neo-liberal right is exploiting these corruption scandals to erode the middle class electoral base of the post -neo-liberal regimes.
Thirdly, the post-neo-liberal regimes increased the quantity of social services, but ignored their quality – provoking widespread discontent with the inadequate public educational, transport, and health services.
Fourthly, inflation is eroding the decade long advance of wage, pension and family allowances. The post-neo-liberal regimes are caught between the pressures to “adjust” –to devalueand impose fiscal ‘austerity’ as proposed by the international bankers and lose mass support, or to engage in deeper structural changes which require among other things, changes in the extractive dependence model and greater public ownership. The crises of the post-neo-liberal regimes is leading to irresolution and opening political space for the neo-liberal right which is allied to military and economic imperialism.
Military imperialism, which was weakened by the popular uprisings at the turn of 20th century is never absent. US military imperialism is first and foremost powerfully entrenched in two major countries: Mexico and Colombia. In both countries neo-liberal regimes bought into the militarization of their societies, including the comprehensive and deep presence of US military-police officials in the structures of the state.
In both states, US military and economic imperialism operates in alliance with paramilitary death squads, even as they proclaimed “a war on drugs”. The ideology of free market imperialism was put into practice with the elimination of trade barriers, widespread privatization of resources and multi-million acre land grants to MNC.
Through its regional clients, US imperialism has a springboard to extend its influence. Mexican style ‘militarized imperialism’ has spread to Central America; Colombia serves as a launch-pad to subvert Venezuela and Ecuador.
Where dissident regimes emerged in regions claimed by militarized imperialism, Honduras and Paraguay, military and civilian coups were engineered. However because of the regional concentration of US military imperialism in the Middle East it relies heavily on local collaborators, political, military and economic elites as vehicles for “regime change”.
Extractive imperialism is under siege from popular movements in many countries in Latin America. In some cases, the political elites have increasingly militarized the contested terrain. Where this is the case, the regimes invite and accept an increased imperial military presence, as advisers, and embrace their militarist ideology, thus fostering a “marriage” between extractive and military imperialism. This is the case in Peru under President Humala and Santos in Colombia.
In Argentina and Brazil, the moderate reformist policies of the Kirchner and Lula/Rousseff regimes are under siege. Faltering export earnings, rising deficits, inflationary pressures have fueled a neo-liberal offensive, which takes a new form: populism at the service of neo-liberal collaboration with military imperialism. Extractive capital has divided -some sectors retain ties with the regime, others, the majority are allied with rising power of the right.
In Brazil, the Right has promoted a former environmentalist (Silva) to front for the hardline neo-liberal financial sector – which has received full support from local and imperial mass media. In Argentina, the imperial state and mass media have backed hedge fund speculators and have launched a full scale economic war, claiming default, in order to damage Buenos Aires’ access to capital markets in order to increase its investments in the extractive sector.
In contrast Bolivia, the extractive model par excellence, has moved successfully to oust and weaken the military arm of imperialism, ending the presence of US military advisers and DEA officials, while deepening and strengthening its ties with diverse extractive MNCs on the one hand, and on the other consolidating support among the trade unions and peasant-Indian movements.
In Ecuador the extractive regime of Correa has diversified the sources of imperial capital from the US to China, and consolidated his power via effective patronage machinery and socio-economic reforms.
The US-Colombian military threat to Venezuela and Ecuador has diminished, peace negotiations with the FARC are advancing and the regime now faces trade union and Indian-peasant opposition with regard to its extractive strategy and corporatist labor reforms.
In both Ecuador and Bolivia, imperial militarism appears to lack the vital strategic military-civilian allies capable of engineering a regime change.
The case of Venezuela highlights the continuing importance of imperial militarism in shaping US policy in Latin America. The pivot to a military policy, was taken by Washington prior to any basic social reforms or economic nationalist measures. The coup of 2001 and lockout of 2002 were backed by the US in response to President Chavez forceful rejection of the “War on Terrorism”. Washington jeopardized its important economic stake, petrol investments, in order to put in place a regime in conforming to its global military strategy.
And for the next decade and a half, the US imperial strategy totally ignored investment, trade and resource opportunities in this wealthy petrol state; it chose to spend hundreds of millions in financing opposition NGO, terrorists, electoral parties, mass media and military officials to effect a regime change. The extractive sector in the US simply became a transmission belt for the agencies of the militarized imperial state. In its place, Russia and China, interested especially extractive sector signed multi-billion dollar contracts with the Venezuelan state: a case of extractive imperialism by invitation – for economic and security reasons.
Apart from the ideological conflict over US militarist expansion, Venezuela’s promotion of Latin American centered regional integration, weakened US leverage and control in the region. In its struggle against Latin American centered regional organizations and to regain its dominance, US imperialism has upgraded its economic profile via the Trans-Pacific Alliance, which includes its most loyal neo-liberal allies – Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico. The global eclipse of economic – driven imperial expansion in favor of the military has not totally displaced several key economic advances in strategic countries and sectors in Mexico, Colombia and Peru.
The privatization and denationalization of the biggest and most lucrative public petrol company in Latin America, PEMEX, the Mexican giant, opens up enormous profitable opportunities for US MNC. The rapid appropriation of oil fields by US MNC will enhance and compliment the militarization of Mexico undertaken by the US military-security apparatus.
The Mexican example highlights several features of US imperialism in Latin America.
Imperial militarization does not necessarily preclude economic imperialism if it takes place within an existing stable state structure. Unlike the imperial wars in Iraq and Libya, the military imperialist policies in Mexico advanced via powerful local political clients willing and able to engage in bloody civil wars costing over 100,000 civilian deaths in over a decade. Under the aegus and guidance of US imperial rulers, the US and Mexican military devastated civil society, but safeguarded and expanded the huge mining and manufacturing enclaves open to economic imperialist exploitation. Militarization contributed to weakening the bargaining rights of labor – wages have declined in real terms over the decades and the minimum wage is the lowest in the hemisphere.
Mexico highlights the crucial role that collaborator elites play in imperial capital accumulation. Mexico is an excellent example of ‘imperialism by invitation’ – the political agreements at the top impose ‘acquiescence’ below. The extraordinary levels of corruptionwhich permeates the entire political class, solidifies the longstanding links between Mexican political-business elite, the MNC and the security apparatus of the imperial state. Extractive imperialism is the principal beneficiary of this “triple alliance”.
In the case of Mexico, militarized imperialism laid the groundwork for the expansion of economic imperialism.
A similar process, involving ‘triple alliances’ is operative in Colombia. For the past decade and a half, militarized-imperialism poured over $6 billion in military aid(Plan Colombia) to finance the dispossession, assassination, arrest and torture and of over 4 million Colombians, including the killing of thousands of trade union and social movement leaders.
The scorched earth policy, backed by a substantial US military mission operated through the existing state apparatus and with the active support of the agro-mineral and banking elite ,aided by nearly 40,000 member paramilitary death squads and drug traffickers laid the groundwork for the large scale entry of extractive capital – particularly mining capital.
Military imperialism preceded the long-term, large scale ‘invasion’ by economic imperialism in the form of a free trade agreement and multi-million acre land grants to mining MNC.
This general pattern was repeated in Peru. The ‘war on terror” under Fujimori and the subsequent liberalization of the economy, under three subsequent Presidents, culminated in the massive primarization of the economy under President Humala – who deepened and extended the expansion of imperial extractive capital.
The economic downturn in some of the post-neo-liberal economies, namely Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, and the rightward moving political spectrum, has opened a window of opportunity for US economic imperialism to work in tandem with the rising neo-liberal political opposition. The military option, a military coup or US military intervention is not on the horizon for the present time. The central focus of imperial state decision makers regarding regime change is a combination of overt electoral and covert ‘street intervention’: adopting ‘populist’, moralist and technocratic rhetoric to highlight corruption in high offices, inefficiency in the delivery of social services with claims of bureaucratic interference in the operations of the market. Business disinvestment, financial speculation on the currency and negative mass media propaganda has coincided strikes and protests against shortages and lag between wage and price increases.
Despite costly and failed imperial wars in the Middle East, despite a decade of military retreat in Latin America, economic imperialism is advancing via the electoral route; it already has established a formidable array of allies among the political regimes in Mexico, Colombia and Peru and is posed to re-establish neo-liberal allies in Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela.
Conclusion
Imperialism as it has evolved over the past quarter of a century cannot be understood as a ‘unified whole’ in which the two basic components, military and economic are always complimentary. Divergences have been graphically illustrated by the imperial wars in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. Convergences are more obvious in Latin America, especially in Mexico, Colombia and Peru, where ‘militarization’ facilitated the expansion of extractive capital.
The theoretical point is that the nature of the political leadership of the imperial state has a high degree of autonomy in shaping the predominance of one or another strand of the imperial expansion. The capacity for imperial capital to expand is highly contingent on the strength and structure of the collaborator state: militarized imperialism that invades and destroys states and the fabric of civil society has led to disinvestment; in contrast economic imperialism by invitation in neo-liberal collaborator states has been at the center of successful imperial expansion.
The ambiguities and contradictions intrinsic to the post-neo-liberal extractivist based development model have both constrainedthe military component of imperialism while expanding opportunities for economic imperial accumulation. Accumulation by invitation, and accumulation by dispossession are simply ‘moments’ in a complex process in which political regime changes intervene and establish the locations and timing for refluxes and influxes of capital.
The rise of new economic imperialist powers like China competing with established imperial powers like the US, has led to alternative markets and sources of financing, which erodes the effectiveness political, military and diplomatic instruments of imperial coercion.
Regional variations in political configurations, imperial priorities and choice of instruments of power, have deeply influenced the nature and structure of imperialism. And as the world historic record seems to argue, military driven empire building in the Middle East has been a disaster while economic driven imperialism shows signs of rapid recovery and successes in Latin America.
*******

Saturday, September 06, 2014

Terrorists - ISIS in the Middle East

 

Learning to Speak Barry’s Language

Fundamental Transformation of America is Obama's REAL War

By Judi McLeod  September 15, 2014

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66022?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=a68e408a09-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-a68e408a09-291118033

Learning to Speak Barry’s Language, Fundamental Transformation of America is Obama's REAL War, Marxist dialectic, ISIS, Islamic State

Pertinent, if not downright cheeky question to the leaders of the now dwindling 40 nations blindly following President Barack Obama into the Machiavellian ISIS war he deceptively tags: “a very significant counter-terrorism operation”:
Are you aware of the war that totally consumes Obama, the one he is waging against America?
That’s a question that sorely needs asking when it is so patently obvious that Obama shows far more gusto on the war deceptively called ‘The Fundamental Transformation of America’ than he displays toward the pretend war on ISIS, and one he’s been able to mastermind with no intervention for the past six years.
After all Obama hasn’t done to come to the aid of Israel against ISIS-supporting Hamas, why are you following Obama’s lead on the “very significant counter-operation”, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
As so many job-providing businesses operate from Canadian soil, with the day-to-day worry about the Marxist misery Obama inflicts on their friends and family, why is Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper one of the core coalition lemmings following Obama’s ISIS lead with a war that puts advisors rather than boots on the ground?
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel lists possible participants of the ISIS Core Coalition as Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark.
And that’s not to mention the columnist David Huntwork-described 10 Arab “frenemy” states that committed on Thursday to the fight against ISIS,  including the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, or that the new coalition also includes Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq.
Harsh reality can always be counted on to shake rhetoric to its wobbly foundation
The duped broad Coalition of the Willing is already unravelling as the Coalition of the Balking Unwilling. Harsh reality can always be counted on to shake rhetoric to its wobbly foundation.
“In less than a day after Obama’s speech, both the UK and Germany (despite their earlier saber-rattling and tough guy talk) announced they have no interest in actually actively participating in any Obama led coalition to go after ISIS’ main bases of power in Syria. France has announced that they will not participate in any land or air actions at all. NATO member Turkey abstained from even pretending to join the anti-ISIS coalition and will not let the US use their airbases to attack ISIS targets in Syria. And now the Saudi’s probably won’t either. (David Huntwork, Sept. 14, 2014)
You don’t have to have the military acumen of a General Douglas MacArthur to know that Obama’s use of the term “very significant counter-terrorism that will have many different moving parts”  parroted zombie-like by his Secretary of State John Kerry, is nothing but a pathetic cop out.
Obama speaks a very different language from those among the 40 nations marching lemming-like off to war against ISIS.  Obama speaks in the language of doublespeak and in the Marxist dialectic.
A perfect example of Obama’s doublespeak Marxist dialectic is his self-coined con phrase, “The Fundamental Transformation of America” (FTOA)
In reality, the FTOA is essentially the absolute destruction of America from within.  Obama knew when he came up with the FTOA term that it would sound far less ominous than the utter destruction of an America much of the rest of the world counts on.
Had Obama honestly enunciated his true intentions for America pre-2008, describing the fundamental transformation of America exactly as it is, he likely never would have been propelled into the Oval Office.
People the mainstream media encouraged to vote for Obama would have thought of him as a despotic mad man.

Mainstream media, true life’s real Coalition of the Willing

But coy and cunning, Obama gave a lofty and deceiving description of his intentions, and did so in full view of a largely unresponsive mainstream media, true life’s real Coalition of the Willing. 
By identifying his so-called attack on ISIS a ‘counter-terrorism operation’, Obama ducks antagonizing the anti-war hysterics, including Code Pink activists who donate generously to his never-ending campaigns.
There’s a method in the madness of his doublespeak.  By watering down the word ‘war’ to ‘counter-terrorism’, he is sending a message that reads he is more than simpatico with the decapitating terrorists of ISIS.
Members of the international coalition who go marching off to fight ISIS should look up to the front of the ISIS attack line to see for themselves that Obama isn’t anywhere in sight.  Obama’s not there because even as Western leaders line up behind him to tackle the terrorists of the Islamic State, insincere President Barack Obama continues to spout meaningless doublespeak from the safety of the rear.
Another example of Obama doublespeak came during the so-called “Arab Spring” for which the mainstream media credits him.  The watching world was left with the false impression that the Arab Spring would be returning enemy nations to democracy.  Instead Arab Spring sprang fully-funded terrorists on an unsuspecting West.
Do nation leaders need to be told that only cowards and liars hide behind the doublespeak of Marxist dialectic?
Obama hides behind his words the same way smarmy carnival hucksters did in past eras.  If plain folk got to realize that the elixir they had paid for was nothing but sugared water that did not cure the ills that prompted them to buy it,  the hucksters always had the same comeback:  “I didn’t promise it would cure you, I only said it was good for you.”
The core coalition marching behind Obama is in the wrong battle because without America there is no free world.
Take stock of what has been happening in the USA for the past six years and this is the only conclusion: if Obama had put the same vigour he spends on his war against America on the Battle Against ISIS, beheading-crazed ISIS would be no more.
*******
The Islamic State: Who Is ISIS? An Open Source Investigation
By James Corbett
Global Research, September 07, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-who-is-isis-an-open-source-investigation/5400029
The hysteria over the supposed threat posed by the Islamic State (IS) is now undeniable. Every day new stories emerge focusing on the group’s brutality, its resources, its capabilities and its intention to strike out at the West. The US Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ranking Senators have all delivered somber assessments of the group’s evil aims in recent weeks, and have they been joined in that effort by a host of counterparts in foreign nations.
The mainstream media, for their part, report these pronouncements without question, and with only a bare minimum of context to help their audience understand the group.
An open source investigation is desperately needed to sort through the hype to determine the facts behind this shadowy terror group. In this article we will examine the background, current status and future aims of the group, as well as the numerous facts that have been carefully omitted from the officially-sanctioned narrative of the group.
Background – History of ISIS
isis-army-700x430
The Islamic State is a caliphate established by a jihadist Islamic group in June 2014. Their expressed goal is to establish Salafist government over the Levant region of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus and Southern Turkey. The group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has been declared caliph and “leader for Muslims everywhere.”
The Islamic State has gone through numerous name changes since its founding in Iraq in 1999. originally known as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (JTJ), (“The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad”), it changed to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn (“The Organization of Jihad’s Base in the Country of the Two Rivers”) in 2004 after the group swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden. During this period it was popularly known as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). In 2006 it became the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), but changed again in 2013 after expanding into Syria. At that point it became Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Its latest moniker, the “Islamic State,” came about after the proclamation of a new caliphate on June 29, 2014.
zarqawiThe group was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 1999. Zarqawi, a Sunni militant from Jordan, enjoyed a remarkable career that involved numerous imprisonments, escapes, evacuations, deaths and resurrections. Meeting Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan at the tail end of the Soviet-Afghan war, Zarqawi was imprisoned in Jordan for six years for attempting to overthrow the Jordanian government. Released in 1999, he made his way to Afghanistan where he ran a militant training camp before making his way to Iraq, allegedly via Iran. During his time in Iraq, he was killed in a bombing raid in April of 2003; miraculously resurrected to be arrested in Fallujah in 2004; re-arrested in Baakuba in January of 2005; evacuated from Iraq in May of 2005; killed in fighting in June of 2005; and once again resurrected to be killed once again (presumably for good) in 2006.
The group was taken over by Abu Omar al-Badhdadi (Hamid Dawud Mohamed Khalil al Zawi, also known as Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi). Baghdadi, exactly like Zarqawi before him, enjoyed an interesting career of imprisonments, deaths and resurrections, as well as questions as to his very existence. He was reported as captured on March 9, 2007, but that claim was retracted on March 10. In May 2007 the Iraqi Interior Ministry reported he had been killed, but the very next month the US military proclaimed he had never existed, citing information from a detainee who said that recordings of Baghdadi were actually recordings of an Iraqi actor hired to put a local face to what was in fact a foreign-run terror campaign, a claim subsequently echoed by Hamas-Iraq. However Baghdadi was reported as arrested on April 23, 2009, a claim that was denied by ISI the next month. The group continued to release recordings of Baghdadi throughout 2009 and 2010 that were authenticated by the (highly suspect) SITE Institute. He was reported as killed once again in April 2010 after a rocket attack on the home he was hiding.
The group was then taken over by Ibrahim ibn Awwad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai, better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This Baghdadi, too, has an uncertain background constructed from conflicting reports. Alleged to have been born in Samarra, Iraq, in 1971, an unverifiable internet biography claims he attained a PhD in Islamic studies at the Islamic University of Baghdad, and unidentified reports suggest he may have been a cleric at a mosque in Samarra during the American invasion in 2003. He was then captured and held as a civilian detainee by US Forces-Iraq at Camp Bucca before being granted an unconditional release on a recommendation from the Combined Review and Release Board. The Defense Department officially proclaims he was detained from February to December 2004, but Army Col. Kenneth King, the former commander of Camp Bucca, insists he was at the camp until 2009, when he was turned over to the Iraqi justice system after the camp’s closure. He was announced as leader of the ISI in May 2010 and reported captured in December 2012, a claim that was immediately denied. He oversaw the expansion of the group into Syria in 2013 and was rumoured to have been killed in June 2014, but a rare video of him delivering a sermon at a mosque in Mosul appeared less than 24 hours later to quash the rumor. He was proclaimed Caliph Ibrahim and leader of all Muslims upon the establishment of the Islamic State caliphate on June 29, 2014.
The New Face of the War on Terror
isis-iraqThe group sprang to the attention of those in the West this year when the group launched an incursion into Iraq that saw them repel the Iraqi army and capture Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, as well as parts of Salahuddin and Ninevheh Provinces, and the cities of Fallujah and Tikrit. According to reports, the group seized as much as $429 million dollars from Mosul’s central bank after taking over the city. With anywhere from 4,000 to 80,000 fighters, the group possesses convoys of identical Toyota trucks, and an arsenal most countries in the region would be envious of, including Stinger missiles, anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank weapons, Blackhawk helicopters and cargo planes, and even a Scud missile. The group also allegedly gained possession of nuclear materials from Mosul University, but the IAEA believes the material is not of sufficient quality to be dangerous in nuclear terrorism.
A stream of increasingly hysterical reports about the group and its supposed existential threat to the region and the world in general has included a joint press conference by US Secretary of Defense Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Dempsey in which they laid out ISIS’ “End-of-Days” vision and stressed that the group is “beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Senator James Inhofe has joined the fray, insisting that the group is working on plans to “blow up” an American city, and numerous outlets have now suggested that city may be Chicago. The hysteria increased with the release of the (now admittedly fake) beheading video of American journalist James Foley and the similarly suspicious video of American-Israeli journalist Steven Sotloff.
In August, President Obama ordered airstrikes over northern Iraq to combat the ISIS threat, warning Americans that the bombing would be a “long-term project.” The airstrikes have been endorsed by Pope Francis, and after Secretary of State Kerry announced that a “worldwide coalition” would be required to defeat the Islamic State, the US has since declared the formation of just such a “core coalition” which includes NATO powers such as the UK.
Alternative Accounts
The group and its leaders have been shrouded in myth and mystery since its inception, as documented above. Even the US government has declared that the Islamic State’s second leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, never existed. The current leader, Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, is so elusive that there are only two known photographs and one video recording of him in existence, leading security “experts” to declare: “They know physically who this guy is, but his backstory is just myth.” This has led many to speculate on the group’s possible founding and backing by Western intelligence as a front for foreign policy goals such as the sectarian division of Iraq or as an excuse to keep the west militarily involved in the region. As far back as 2006 the UK Telegraph reported that prominent Sunni insurgent leaders in Iraq were claiming that the group’s founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was “”an American, Israeli and Iranian agent who is trying to keep our country unstable so that the Sunnis will keep facing occupation.” This sentiment is echoed to the present day, with Saudi scholar Consultative Assembly member Dr. Aissa Al-Ghaith claiming that the Islamic State is backed by America, Israel and Iran. This sentiment is bolstered by the revelation earlier this year that ISIS fighters were trained by the US military at a camp in Jordan in 2012.
There are many questions surrounding the group’s online PR activities and its unlikely facility with various forms of media, a phenomenon that even the New York Times has noted. Although much has been made of the rounds of photos claiming to show the group’s brutal execution and treatment of its prisoners, at least some of these photos appear to have been recycled from other countries at other times. There is still no answer as to who staged the beheading video of James Foley or why it was faked, but many point to the fact that British authorities warned that merely looking at the video might qualify as terrorism as a sign of the video’s true nature and origins.
This continues a tradition of suspicious ISIS media releases dating back to the recordings of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi that were released during the 2009-2010 period after the US government had declared him a fictitious character and Iraqi authorities reported that he was under arrest.
An image of US Senator John McCain in Syria in April 2013 has generated controversy for claims that it pictures him with ISIS member Mohammad Nour and even ISIS leader Baghdadi himself. Some have cast doubt on whether the man in the photograph is Baghdadi, but the man does bear an uncanny resemblance to the official picture of Baghdadi on the State Department “Rewards for Justice” website.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
*******
The Atlantic Alliance’s “Holy War” against the Islamic State (ISIS): NATO’s Role in the Recruitment of Islamic Terrorists
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 05, 2014
Url of this article:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-atlantic-alliances-holy-war-against-the-islamic-state-isis-natos-role-in-the-recruitment-of-islamic-terrorists/5399540
While NATO leaders in Newport Wales debate the Atlantic Alliance’s role “in containing a mounting militant threat in the Middle East”, it is worth recalling that in 2011 at the outset of the war in Syria, NATO became actively involved in the recruitment of Islamic fighters.
Reminiscent of the enlistment of the Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war, NATO headquarters in Brussels in liaison with the Turkish High command, according to Israeli intelligence sources, was involved in the enlisting of thousands of terrorists:
 “Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (Debkafile, August 31, 2011 emphasis added).
Confirmed by Israeli intelligence News, NATO played a key role in the delivery of weapons to Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in the Aleppo region bordering onto Turkey:
NATO and a number of European governments, most significantly the UK, have started airlifting heavy weapons to the Syrian rebels poised in Aleppo to fend off a major Syrian army offensive, according to debkafile’s exclusive military sources. They disclose that the first shipments were landed Monday night, June 17 [2013], and early Tuesday in Turkey and Jordan. They contained anti-air and tank missiles as well as recoilless 120 mm cannons mounted on jeeps. From there, they were transferred to rebel forces in southern Syria and Aleppo in the northwest. (Debkafile, June 18, 2013)
“Terrorists R Us”

Ironically, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron (who is hosting the NATO Summit in Wales), have asserted that they “will not be cowed by barbaric killers”:

 “We will not waver in our determination to confront the Islamic State …If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats they could not be more wrong.” (Barack Obama and David Cameron, Strengthening the NATO alliance, op ed published in the London Times, September 4, 2014, emphasis added)
But these “Barbaric Killers” were created by the Western military alliance. They are serving the strategic interests of the U.S., Britain, not to mention Israel.
“They are Our Terrorists“. Without the terrorists, the “Global War on Terrorism” would fall flat.
The Obama-Cameron narrative borders on ridicule. It is not only absurd, it is criminal.
What they are proposing is an all encompassing NATO mandate to “Go after Terrorist Entities” which they themselves created as part of an insidious intelligence operation to destabilize and destroy both Syria and Iraq.

British and French Special Forces have been actively training Syria opposition rebels from a base in Turkey.
Israel has provided a safe haven to Al Qaeda affiliated rebels including ISIS and Al Nusrah rebels in the occupied Golan Heights.
Netanyahu has met up with jihadist leaders in the Golan Heights. The IDF top brass acknowledges that there are “global jihad elements inside Syria” supported by Israel.
Image left: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Shakes Hand with a wounded Al Qaeda Terrorist in occupied Golan.
Lest we forget, Al Qaeda was at the outset a creation of the CIA. Who is behind the ISIS terrorists? The mainstream media is mum on the subject, despite mountains of evidence that they are creations of the Western military alliance.
Islamic State funded by Saudi Arabia enters Iraq
*******
NATO’s Criminal Agenda
What we are dealing with is a criminal agenda under NATO auspices. The evidence amply confirms that the US and Britain in liaison with the Atlantic Alliance have relentlessly supported both the creation as well as development of an Islamic Terror Network which now extends from the Middle East and North Africa into sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia.
And now Obama and Cameron, whose governments are the architects of the Islamic State, are calling upon the Atlantic Alliance as well all on the governments of the 28 NATO member states to endorse the bombing campaign on Iraq and Syria as part of “counter-terrorism” operation.
The ISIS brigades are “intelligence assets” supported by US-NATO-Israel. They will not be the object of the bombings. Quite the opposite.
What is envisaged as part of the propaganda campaign is to use the “threat of the Islamic State” as a pretext and justification to intervene militarily under a “humanitarian” “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) mandate. The civilian population will not be protected. Under this diabolical military-intelligence operation, The Islamic State (ISIS) brigades with Western Special Forces within their ranks are slated to be “protected”.
The War on Syria From the outset of the war on Syria in March 2011, member states of the Atlantic Alliance as well as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have (covertly) supported the terrorists –including al Nusrah and the ISIS– with a view to destabilizing Syria as a nation state. These actions were implemented in liaison with NATO headquarters in Brussels.
The process of recruitment and training of mercenaries had been sub-contracted to private security companies operating out of the Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Reports point to the creation of training camps in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
In Zayed Military City (UAE), “a secret army is in the making” was operated by Xe Services, formerly Blackwater. The UAE deal to establish a military camp for the training of mercenaries was signed in July 2010, nine months before the onslaught of the wars in Libya and Syria. (See Manlio Dinucci, A Secret Army of Mercenaries for the Middle East and North Africa, Il Manifesto. 18 May 2011)
Moreover, confirmed by CNN, security companies on contract to NATO member states were involved in training Syria “opposition” death squads in the use of chemical weapons:
 “The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. (CNN Report, December 9, 2012)
NATO Supported the Terrorists in Libya
From the outset of NATO’s 2011 “humanitarian war” on Libya, the Atlantic alliance was working in close liaison with the “pro-Al Qaeda brigades” led by “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) leader Abdul Hakim Belhhadj (Debka, Pro-Al Qaeda brigades control Qaddafi Tripoli strongholds seized by rebels, August 28, 2011 )
Abdul Hakim Belhhadj received his military training in a CIA sponsored guerrilla camp in Afghanistan. He constitutes a CIA “intelligence asset” operating in the Libyan war theater. A 2011 report suggested that he had some 1,000 men under his command. (Libyan rebels at pains to distance themselves from extremists – The Globe and Mail, March 12, 2011)
The US-NATO coalition is arming the Jihadists. Weapons are being channeled to the LIFG from Saudi Arabia, which historically, since the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war, has covertly supported Al Qaeda. The Saudis are now providing the rebels, in liaison with Washington and Brussels, with anti-tank rockets and ground-to-air missiles. (See Michel Chossudovsky “Our Man in Tripoli”: US-NATO Sponsored Islamic Terrorists Integrate Libya’s Pro-Democracy Opposition, Global Research, 3 April 2011)
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
*******
Also See:

Are America and Iran Now Allies?
23 June 2014
*******

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

The Collapse of the Entire World’s Economic System has Begun! (Part 2)

********
 
National Wall of Debt
Out-of-control spending and 100's of billions of dollars in additional deficits being added each year
By Mike Foil 
September 7, 2014
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65840?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=c651747ab8-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-c651747ab8-291118033
National Wall of Debt, spending, taxes, borrowing, deficits
At the end of this month (September 2014), the “wall of debt” will be 24.5 feet tall.
I have written about the ever increasing height of the wall of debt. (You can get the basis for the calculations on my blog entry in June 2011 “The 20’ Wall of Debt”.)
If you lay dollar bills end-to-end and flat on the ground, around the world at the equator; our national debt would create a wall of dollar bills 24.5 feet tall.
Think about that! 24.5 feet tall is about the height of a telephone pole in a residential neighborhood. Now picture in your mind a stack of dollar bills that tall surrounding your neighborhood. That would be a lot of money. Now stretch your imagination to picture that wall ALL THE WAY AROUND THE WORLD! Now we are talking serious money!
This amount of money is not what the Federal Government is spending, it reflects what they are spending above and beyond what they are collecting in taxes. They are currently setting records in the amount of taxes being collected.
To paint a different word picture of the amount of debt our nation owes, it would take 562,163 years to pay it off, one dollar per second with no additional borrowing and paying no interest.
This does not even consider the massive, unfunded liabilities of our government.
Even with this being such an enormous problem, no one in Washington seems to be that concerned about the out-of-control spending and 100’s of billions of dollars in additional deficits being added each year.
Scroll down this page for Disqus Comments
Mike Foil, The Housetop Proclamations,  describes himself this way:
I am a native of Arizona and prefers the small town life and the company of family and friends to the hustle and bustle of the city. I love God, my wife, my family (four kids, all married with kids - ten grandkids). I love the USA - don’t want it changed. I have the utmost respect for members of the military, current and past. My Dad is the best example I know of “The Greatest Generation”. I was born conservative and have conservative blood running through my veins.
Mike Foil can be reached at: appraiseaz@aol.com
*******
Is this the Big One? Central Bankers from the World Over Warn of Impending ‘Perfect Storm’
John Horvat    
Aug. 25, 2014
There is a major financial storm brewing on the horizon.
Such dramatic statements have long been the staple of naysayers for decades. Usually these warnings are dismissed by the financial establishment as the ravings of fringe analysts. Yes, crashes do happen, but the naysayers are never seen as prophets, but just opportunists who happened to be right much the way a broken clock is right twice a day.
But maybe this storm is different.
There are still plenty of naysayers weighing in on the major problems with the traction-less, hobbling “recovery.” However, they are now joined by important players in the financial establishment who fear something big might be coming down the line. Indeed, this one might prove to be the big one.
The concerns come from the latest annual report issued by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) that meets in Basel, Switzerland. The exclusive, invitation-only group is composed of bankers from all the world’s main central banks. If anyone knows what’s going on in the economy, it should be these bankers. And their findings are hardly guarded behind closed doors. If anyone wants to see the report, it is readily available to the public.
What these bankers now see are turbulent times ahead.
The language in the 2014 edition of the annual report is unusually direct with warnings that the world could be hurtling itself toward a new crisis. With a note of déjà vu, it claims the climate is now more fragile and volatile than the buildup to the Lehman Brothers crisis in 2007.
The same old signs are there. Not much has changed. Debt levels remain high everywhere, encouraged by low interest rates. Dangerous new asset bubbles are forming.
What makes this storm different is that it is not only the developed countries that are out of balance but emerging nations have joined the party. Debt ratios in the developed countries have now risen to as much as 275 percent of gross national product, while the emerging economies of China, Brazil, Turkey and others are gorging themselves on private credit booms of their own, increasing their debt ratio significantly.
If banks and government don’t pay attention to warnings, bank vaults might go empty and the entire world could face another economic disaster.  (AP Photo/The Grand Rapids Press, Chris Clark)
*******
It would be wrong to put the blame on abstract economic indicators, financial instruments or debt ratios. The real blame falls upon the actual people engaged in the markets. So many players in the game have thrown caution to the wind and participate in what might rightfully be called the “frenetic intemperance” of the times.
Investors are ignoring the risks of monetary tightening and are engaged in the voracious hunt for yields. Assuming low interest rates, the constant search for higher returns is compelling investors to snap up ever more risky junk bonds and stocks. Equity markets have been termed “euphoric,” calling to mind the “irrational exuberance” of the Greenspan era.
Not only are investors operating at full throttle, but they are not taking the right measures to avoid collisions.
Banks should be raising more capital as a cushion against risk. Large firms should be looking for ways to add productive capacity but are buying back shares or engaging in mergers and acquisitions instead.
Of particular concern is China’s unbridled and frenzied credit growth over the last five years. Many fear that the state-controlled banking system lacks the flexibility to avoid a hard landing that will lead to a financial day of reckoning for China with worldwide repercussions.
“The temptation to postpone adjustment can prove irresistible, especially when times are good and financial booms sprinkle the fairy dust of illusory riches,” the BIS report warns. “The consequence is a growth model that relies too much on debt, both private and public, and which over time sows the seeds of its own demise.”
The message from the central bankers is that the world has forgotten the lessons of recent years. Unfortunately, those who forget the lessons of history are often condemned to repeat them.
Thus, there is a major financial storm brewing on the horizon.
This is the conclusion not of fringe economists, but of world-class bankers. The result may well be not just an ordinary storm but a perfect storm with all major indicators converging.
Indeed, this might be the big one.
John Horvat II is an scholar, educator, researcher, international speaker and author of the book, “Return to Order.” He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania, where he serves as vice president for The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.
Also See:
Food Shortage, Then Anarchy!
25 July 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/07/food-shortage-then-anarchy.html
and
Disasters Happen! Be Prepared!
(Part 1)
31 March 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/03/disasters-happen-be-prepared.html
and
(Part 2)
30 August 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/08/disasters-happen-be-prepared-part-2.html
and
The Collapse of the Entire World’s Economic System has Begun!
(Part 1)
18 March 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/03/the-collapse-of-entire-worlds-economic.html
and
Economic Collapse! How Did We Get Here?
(Part 2)

28 September 2013
and
Are We Facing a Global Financial Crisis?
31 May 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/05/are-we-facing-global-financial-crisis.html
and
Financial Crunch! Economic Collapse!
(Part 1)
31 July 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse.html
and
(Part 2)
20 November 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/11/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 3)
25 January 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 4)
17 April 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 5)
23 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 6)
23 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 7)
30 November 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/11/xxxx.html
and
(Part 8)
23 February 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/02/debt-dynamite-dominoes-coming-financial.html
and
(Part 9)
28 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 10)
13 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 11)
29 April 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 12)
28 July 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 13)
04 April 2012
(Part 15)
02 November 2012
and
Recession? ... Depression? ... What is Going On?
(Part 1)
06 October 2008
(Part 2)
02 February 2009
and
(Part 3)
19 April 2009
and
(Part 4)
02 August 2009
and
(Part 5)
17 September 2010
and
(Part 6)
17 September 2010
and
(Part 7)
23 July 2014
and
Jobs, Jobs, Where are the Jobs?
(Part 1)
20 April 2010
and
The Poor - Prosperity Creates Poverty! 
(Part 1) 
and
(Part 2)
13 November 2013
and
How Do We Eradicate Poverty?
27 November 2012
*******