NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM AUGUST 17 2017 – Dr. Farrell On Geopolitics, Europe, Germany, Washington, Russia, Economic War, & More

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 17, 2017

Germany backs China’s and Russia’s “double freeze” plan:
http://theduran.com/korea-crisis-germ…

Is The USA’s Worst Ideological Enemy Now Europe?

FakeNews
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 24, 2017

This is a very unusual, and though-provoking, op-ed piece that was shared by Ms. K.F., and I want to discuss a few of its salient points. First, the article:

The Worst Ideological Enemy of the US is Now Europe

The premise of the article is that basically the institutions of the European Union itself, as those of many of its member governments, are now thoroughly dominated by the political (and, I would aver, more importantly, the cultural left), and that as such, Europe is emerging as a primary ideological opponent of the USSA:

Not anymore. In a sense, Europe looks like a continent where American Democrats have been in power for 30 years, not only in the European states, but also at the level of the European Union.

In the US, the political spectrum still spans a vast range of views between Democrats and Republicans, globalists and nationalists, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, pro-government control and pro-individuals’ control, and pro-whatever. Even today with a president and a Supreme Court clearly on the political “Right” these divisions, and the all-important separation of powers, allow for and encourage vigorous debate. By contrast, in Europe, at the “official” level, such a spectrum of views no longer exists.

In Western Europe, politically speaking, in the press and in universities, either you are on the “Left,” or you are a pariah. If you are a pariah, you are most likely to be prosecuted for “Islamophobia”, “racism”, discrimination or some other “trumped up” charge.

Now, this premise intrigues me, and I have to confess at the outset of my daily high octane speculation, I’m at rather a loss, simply for the reason that many of the regular readers of this website are not only Americans, but Canadians, Mexicans, Australians, Chinese(!), Estonians, Poles, Germans, Italians (or, at least, Americans living in Italy), Greeks, Croatians, Spaniards, Belgians, Dutch, French, British, Norwegians, Austrians, and Swedes. So we are pretty well scattered across the board at this website.

My distinct impression from interacting with all these people is (1) Europeans are anything but monolithic in their commitments to the political-cultural left, and (2) Americans on the other hand, while very diverse in the political-cultural commitments, are no better off than Europeans, for the institutions of the American government and culture are no less dominated by the left than the article alleges Europe’s are. Indeed, from years of interacting with all these people, one thing seems unusually clear to me about Europeans, namely, they are not only conscious of a uniquely “European” culture and how that culture forms the bedrock of what we call “Western” culture, but they are not ignorant, by any stretch of the imagination, of the uniqueness of their own national culture and its contributions to that overall “Western” or “European” culture. How could they be? If one pauses to reflect on the enormous influences of Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and Britain on this culture, one would be hard pressed to ignore it.

As I have mentioned before on this website, if anything, the USSA’s actions since 9/11 in the unipolar pursuit of a pax Americana have provoked a worldwide backlash against America, as long and staunch allies are reconsidering the stability of that alliance system. This will only continue, so long as American policy is focused on the same old paradigm (which, given my recent blog on the recent Pentagon assessment, it appears to be).

Every now and then, in these blogs, I “throw things open” because I really want to know what people think about an article, and this is one such case. Am I wrong, or is this article painting a picture of Europe and Europeans that simply is not true? And by the same token, is it painting an accurate picture of America, or one that is simply untrue? I suspect the latter, but I am not sure. By the same token, speaking as an American, I can say that the final paragraph in my citation above, reads a bit like make believe: “In Western Europe, politically speaking, in the press and in universities, either you are on the ‘Left’ or you are a pariah,”as if the same phenomenon is not in abundance in this country. Speaking only for myself, this is the way I’ve increasingly felt in America ever since my days teaching in college.

But more importantly, what is to be done about it? The author of this article, Dr. Drieu Godefridi, takes note of a frustration that many Europeans feel with the institutions of the E.U.: they are all centralizing, one-size-fits-all, and trample on the wishes of local and national populations and their institutions:

While Italy is “drowning” in refugees, Austria has deployed armored vehicles close to its border with Italy, to stop more migrants from coming north.

The vast majority of these European courts — whether the ECHR or the CJEU — in their attempt to be moral and just, have dismissed the sovereign laws of Italy as irrelevant, and trampled the rights of the Italian state and ordinary Italians to approve who enters their country.

I thought as I read this that there’s little difference between Europe and the USSA, as the following “creative substitutions” in the quotation – I hope – will make clear:

“While California is drowning in refugees, Arizona has deployed armored vehicles to close its border with California, to stop more migrants from coming north.

“The vast majority of these American Courts – whether the Ninth Circuit or the Supremes – in their attempt to be moral and just, have dismissed the sovereign laws of Texas and Arizona as irrelevant, trampled on the rights of American states and ordinary Americans to approve who enters their country.”

Far from seeing the differences between Europe and the USSA, at least as Dr. Godefridi paints them, I’m seeing much more the similarities. So, I want to know, what do you think, not only of the article and analysis, but much more importantly, what is to be done? Is it merely a matter of being able to “discuss” things or, to use that hated term, “dialogue” with “the other side”, or is something else going on that really, ultimately, precludes it?

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Bank Bailout In Italy & A Problem Looming Between The…

Banksters
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 10, 2017

Mr J.K. sent this article about the bailout of Banco Monte dei Paschi di Sienna in Italy and some other banks, to the tune of a mere twenty-five and a half billion dollars, mere pocket change. But there’s something else looming in this article and it provokes some high octane speculation of the day. Here’s the article:

Italy swoops in to save another bank leaving taxpayers on the hook for over $25 billion

In my opinion, the central story here is not the bailout of troubled Venetian banks (some stories never change, do they?) but Italy’s, and Europe’s, and one of the world’s oldest, banks in continual operation since the Renaissance, the Banco Monte dei Paschi di Sienna, and one statement in particular caught my interest, and I suspect behind its careful “un-detailed” words lies a huge story which one might summarize with the word “cover-up”:

Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan announced late Tuesday that the government had received approval from the European Commission to pump 5.4 billion euros into Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS) in exchange for the lender undertaking a major restructuring overhaul. (Emphasis added)

And, one paragraph away, there’s this:

Toxic assets are at the heart of the bank’s demise and its plan includes the intention to sell down 28.6 billion euros of gross non-performing loans (NPLs), of which 26.1 billion euros will be securitized (converted into marketable securities).

Toxic assets, non-performing loans, in a major western bank!?!?

So it isn’t so!

Then, later, we read this:

Indeed, there could also be an opportunity for brave investors, suggests Surry, if Italy follows the path trodden by Spain which has seen its banking sector shrink from around 70 lenders to closer to a dozen since the financial crisis.

“Potentially BMPS is a consolidation play because ultimately the bank will be clean and definitely there is consolidation to take place in Italy from the 400-plus institutions down to probably 150,” he offered.

So we have:

1) The bailout of Banco dei Paschi di Sienna;

2) Which received approval for a bailout in exchange for “restructuring” from the European Commission, which is now, apparently, in charge of what banks the Italian government gets to bail out, and the conditions under which it can do so;

3) Which restructuring presages a consolidation of lenders throughout the Italian banking system, resulting in fewer “lenders/banks”.

I don’t know about you, but gee, this pattern looks a little familiar.

There’s a great big huge elephant in the room, however, that the article is not talking about. In fact, one might say there’s not only an elephant, but a rhinoceros in the room. The elephant? Deutsche Bank and its relation to the Banco dei Paschi di Sienna, as covered in previous blogs on this site. And the rhinoceros? Italian prosecutions of the elephant.  Noteworthy here is the entire absence of any mention of either one throughout the entire article, and that raises my suspicion meter into the red zone, and with it, some unusual and very high octane speculations.

What disturbs me here is that any action by the European Commission in this matter should be viewed as a conflict of interest, since the EU is largely a Franco-German union, with everyone else along for the ride as Frau Merkel gets to play Charlemagne (or perhaps, Karlamagne, or Karlin or Kaiserin, or something), a role she clearly appears to be enjoying. But why would the European Commission have reason to step in? I suspect, strongly, that the real bank being protected here, and being bailed out, is Deutsche Bank and its own high exposure to “toxic assets”, some of them via its entanglement with the Banco dei Paschi, and that the “restructing” of the Banco dei Paschi di Sienna might, in reality, be an attempt to disguise things and prevent them from emerging into public light as Italy is openly debating leaving the European Union (Charlemagne, Inc., or perhaps better put, Charlemagne A.G.). If so, then a disturbing pattern is emerging here: using national banking crises, the European Commission is establishing the conditions to “restructure” national banking systems according to its own whims, and to make them subject to the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. In the process, more will be swept under the rug.

And that means the can is simply being kicked down the road, for they have no genuine solutions.

Let’s hope the Italians look at this whole thing much more closely.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Germany Has Had It, Consider Sanctions Against USA

alternative news
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 6, 2017

A few days ago I blogged about a suspicion I’ve long entertained, namely, that there appears to be some sort of covert war taking place between Washington and Berlin, and that this covert war has been going on for a while, most recently entering an “economic warfare” guise. I’ve also advanced the hypothesis that American “rebasing” efforts in Eastern Europe were part of a very old geopolitical game, first played by King Edward VII, then by Clemenceau, Chamberlain and Daladier. Edward, of course, helped engineer the Triple Entente, the alliance of France, Russia, and Britain that was, of course, directed against Germany and eventually “lay siege” to the Central Powers for four years during World War One. Edward’s ploy, of course, was also to prevent the “geopolitically unthinkable”: an alliance of Russia and Germany, long the bug-a-boo of geopolitical thinking. After World War One, the formal alliance system was replaced by the idea of the cordon sanitaire, the “buffer zone” of small states created from the nationalities within the old Russian Empire: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania became the “sanitary cordon” between Russia and Germany to prevent an alliance.

Of course, the Treaty of Rapallo side-stepped all of this. Then came the strengthening of that idea with the military guarantees given by Daladier and Chamberlain to Poland…

… an idea that didn’t work out too well for Poland, France, the UK, or ultimately, Germany.

The most recent version of this game has been the “let’s launch a coup in the Ukraine, and, just to keep Merkel out of it, launch sanctions on Russia (for its aggression in the affair, of course), which sanctions will keep Germany and Russia from building all those pipelines and cementing other lucrative deals). Part and parcel of my hypothesis about this covert warfare also deals with the war of fines and sanctions against German banks (Deutsche Bank) and German auto manufacturers.

Well, it’s beginning to look more and more like this hypothesis might have some traction, for the gloves are increasingly coming off. The most recent round of anti-Russia sanctions, I wrote a few days ago, was as much directed against Germany as they were against Russia.

And now Kanzlerin Merkel is making no bones about it, and pulling no punches: Germany is considering economic sanctions on the USA, this time, against imports of American energy, according to this Sputnik article shared by Ms. K.M.:

The Final Straw: Germany Mulling Over Sanctions… This Time Against the US

There are some important considerations and paragraphs here to note:

In a joint statement, Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austria’s Chancellor Christian Kern slammed the decision by the US Senate to impose new sanctions on Moscow over its alleged interference in the US presidential election as well as the ongoing situations in Ukraine and Syria.

“Threatening German, Austrian and other European enterprises with penalties on the US market only because they take part in the gas supply projects such as the Nord Stream 2 together with Russia or finance them, is adding an absolutely new and highly negative aspect in relations between the US and Europe,” the joint statement reads.

For his part, the leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), Martin Schulz, lambasted US senators’ move and called upon German Chancellor Angela Merkel to oppose it.

“We have seen that the US is pursuing a course in energy policy that is dangerous and is directed against Germany,” Schulz told the Federal Association of German Industry (BDI). (Emphasis added)

Now, in my previous blog on this subject, I only suggested that the perception of the new sanctions regime would backfire and be seen as sanctions against Germany (which I also argued was the real additional, though hidden, target of the sanctions). Here, the leader of the opposition party in Germany, Herr Schulz, is now saying openly what only a few days ago was mere suspicion. To put it country simple: the situation is deteriorating quickly.

But there’s more:

Germany and Austria suspect that Senate’s anti-Russian bill is an attempt to “occupy” the European energy market on the part of US corporations.

“Germany and Austria went one step further, too — accusing the US of looking to promote the role of US LNG in Europe at the expense of Russian gas,” the S&P Global Platts writer underscored, adding that the US apparently wants to kill two birds with one stone by exerting sanctions on Nord Stream 2: to “punish” Moscow and promote US LNG supplies in Europe, “which would have the knock-on effect of supporting domestic US gas industry.”

In this context, Danilov wrote, it is most likely that potential anti-American sanctions would be aimed not at inflicting any economic damage on the US but at sabotaging Washington’s attempts to seize the European energy market.

“A ban on the import of American LNG into the EU countries could have become a very effective tool to prevent America’s attempts to influence the European market,” Danilov assumed adding that this measure could potentially attract wide public support. (Emphasis added)

This, too, is a new admission in the growing and widening gulf between Berlin and Washington, and like it or not, where Berlin goes on this issue, Europe goes. That means we are fast approaching the point when Europe will have to choose between the USA and Russia, a choice that has been delayed for some decades, but which, now, with the USSA playing “world cop,” crawling into bed with radical Islamic terrorist organizations, and interfering in the internal policies of several nations, in the long term, I suspect that the choice will not be favorable to Washington, regardless what Europe does in the short term.

The reason: Washington has proven its growing instability and psychopathy since 9/11. The last sentence of the article reminds us of this point: “It appears that the US political elite have completely forgotten that the interest of its European partners should be taken into account, Danilov concluded.”

Precisely, the unipolar paradigm reigns in Washington, in the dominant party, and the fake opposition party. And that unipolar paradigm has, since 9/11, seen the following things be accomplished: (1) Japanese rearmament, (2) Growing Russo-Japanese cooperation, (3) A fed-up Philippines, (4) more bi-lateral currency-trade deals bypassing the US dollar, (5) an insane, banana-republic political culture in Washington, (6) arms sales to the (out)House of Saud, a prime contributor to Islamic terrorism, (7) growing radicalism in Indonesia, and now, (8) the growing estrangement between Washington and our most powerful ally in Europe.

Washington has repeatedly asked its European “allies” to step up to the plate and do more for its own defense. But I have to wonder, if that happened, and Europe then demanded removal of ALL American bases in Europe because they’re sick and tired of being under Washington’s thumb, what the response would be.

I suspect we all know.

In any case, I suspect we’ll find out, after a few years of Japanese rearmament, when they once again ask us to get rid of our bases there.

So, if we want our allies to continue to be allies, then we need to stop treating them as vassals and satraps, and we’d better do so quickly. The trouble is, the idiots in Washington have not existed in a multi-polar world since the beginning of World War Two. They no longer know how.

They’re stupid.

And because they’re stupid, everyone is in trouble.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Churchill-Lord Halifax Moment Of History: May Government In…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 11, 2017

Last week’s general election in the U.K. didn’t quite go the way Prime Minister Theresa May and her Tory party had hoped, with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party picking up seats, leaving the Tories with a thin majority in Parliament, and having to retain power by climbing into bed with the Northern Irish DUP party, which, I am informed, is a “hard right” party because it’s against gay marriage. But hey, bringing in boatloads of barbarians who like to execute gay people from the region of the world dominated by the Religion of Peace Love and Tolerance is ok.  It’s things like this that are the source of my confusions. The results intrigue me, because during last Friday’s members’ vidchat, some of our U.K. members were trying to make sense of the results for me, and of course, I ended up being more confused than before. My first suggestion to my British friends: write your constitution down somewhere. That way, you can keep track of how much of it you’re ignoring. It works for us. As it is, it takes a barrister from the Inner Temple to figure it out, and even they have difficulty.

So back to the British elections and my confusion. One individual of my website informed me during the vidchat that many of the pro-Brexit voters turned to Labour in this general election, and away from the Tories. This makes a little sense to me (and only a little), because the whole Brexit thing was what brought down Mr. Cameron and installed Ms. May. But my impression was that the pro-Brexit voters pretty much spanned both large political parties in Great Britain, so I am even more confused as to why the Tories would have assumed that the Brexit-UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) voters would automatically in the Tory party pocket.

My attempts to get any sense from my U.K. members what the main issues (for them, or as they saw them) were, was pretty much a failure. So in lieu of having any solid idea on what just happened, and why, I went hunting through my email folder and found this article from the Globe and Mail shared by Mr. T.M., and I suppose it does just about as good a job as any in explaining things from the point of view of the British electorate:

May will work with ‘friends’ in Northern Irish DUP to achieve Brexit

There’s a few weird things in this article, that make me wonder even more what’s going on. One thing it points out is that Britons were mainly concerned with domestic issues, and the less-than-stellar performance of the May government in dealing with them. For example:

However, the election campaign quickly turned against Ms. May. The public didn’t focus on Brexit as much as she’d hoped and instead concentrated on domestic issues such as health care, education and taxation. Ms. May, 60, fumbled the announcement of a key social policy measure for older people, upsetting seniors and forcing her to make a hasty backtrack. She also ran into trouble over her plans to cut immigration, causing confusion with an unclear timetable. And she turned off some voters by refusing to debate Mr. Corbyn and by appearing robotic in a couple of televised town-hall-style sessions.

Terrorist attacks in Manchester and London also exposed her legacy of cutting 20,000 police officers during her six years as interior minister. Mr. Corbyn pounced on the police cuts and many rank and file officers complained about the lack of resources just as the country faced its biggest terrorist threat since the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s.

This of course reassured me, in that I was wondering if the terrorist attacks figured in the voting results at all. Some people I talked to said yes; others no. But there’s a quasi-constitutional issue looming, not the least of which is because Ms. May now has a much weaker government – indeed one might argue, an unstable one – with which to negotiate with the European (dis)Union of its Brexit policy. Mr. Corbyn, the Labour leader captures this problem succinctly:

But there were already growing calls for her to resign.

“She wanted a mandate. Well, the mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go,” Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn said.

Labour Finance Critic John McDonnell said the party was ready to try to form a minority government. “If we can form a minority government, I think we can have a stable government,” he said Friday. “We would be able to produce a Queen’s speech and budget based upon our manifesto, which I think could command majority support in Parliament, not through deals or coalitions but policy by policy.”

So why hasn’t she gone? Whatever one makes of British politics (and it’s always hazardous to guess), I just get the feeling that there is a lot more behind this one paragraph than the standard, traditional, “visit-of-the-winning-party-leadership-to-see-the-Queen”:

“I have just been to see Her Majesty the Queen, and I will now form a government – a government that can provide certainty and lead Britain forward at this critical time for our country,” Ms. May said after her Conservatives failed to cling to a majority.

I don’t know about you, but I just cannot help feel a slight tingle of deja vu here, and feel that we’re looking at another Royal Palace-Churchill-Lord Halifax moment of history. There across the channel is the German colossus, astride Western Europe, making demands and extending olive branches and hoping Halifax wins the Royal lottery and forms a government (after all, he’s the Palace favorite, and the Palace is, after all, occupied by a bunch of Germans, though over the last 150 years, almost all traces of the German accent have disappeared. The de-Nazification program (me) apparently has not been 100% successful, because some of them want to become viruses to wipe out whole swaths of the human population.). And then of course there’s the radical Liberal-today-Tory-tomorrow Churchill. Churchill, as we know, won the Royal favo(u)r and the then-existing version of “hard Brexit” won out, though there were times that the Churchill government’s grasp on power, behind the scenes, was not as secure as it was maintaining in public, as Britain was unceremoniously ejected from Greece, and a fellow by the name of Rommel began to cause more than a few headaches in Africa. Churchill was banking on America, not a German-led Europe, and again, the deja vu is too weird not to notice, for after the Brexit vote, the U.K. was thinking about “What to do with the Commonwealth,” and the answer was straight out of Cecil Rhodes and Chatham House: “Let’s invite America to become an associate member.”

Of course Ms. May now has her work cut out for her, and frankly, it will be interesting to see if her government survives, and how long it survives. Her “war cabinet” is already grumbling, just as Mr. Churchill’s began to grumble after the first – or is this the second? (or the third if you count 1814-1815) This is all getting so confusing – Fall of France (see Emmanuel Macron). And Corbyn? Should a Corbyn minority government ever form, I suspect its days, too, will be very numbered, and for many of the same reasons.

The parallels are not, of course, exact. May is no Churchill, nor is Mr. Corbyn, and neither are a very good imitation of Lord Halifax. Both are too bland and dull to be Churchill, and are too sharp and radical to be a Halifax. But the situation is, overall, bizarrely similar: a united German-led Europe, threats of invasion from barbarians with little grounding in western culture and institutions, governments of appeasement, and so on.

In any case, the results are a muddle.

Leaving the British to do what they do best in a tight place: muddle through.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Is There A Quiet War Going On Between USA & Germany? [Part 1]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 8, 2017

I’ve had this suspicion for some time that some sort of quiet war, punctuated – or perhaps better put, underscored – at times by apparent “new depths of cooperation” between Germany and the USA. And, for “Germany” here one might also say, to some extent, continental Europe.

Now, before I go any further, I need to remind people of some fundamental truths: (1) since 1871, and for the foreseeable future, Germany has been and will continue to be the economic and industrial locomotive of Europe, and that can be (and has been) translated at times into military power (q.v. World War One, and World War Two); (2) German war aims in both World Wars was the creation of a European federation under German dominance (that one seems to have worked out), and, coincidentally, the USA had a similar war aim in World War Two, and became a backer for the creation of the Common Market that led to today’s European Union; (3) Germans are not Nazis and not interested in conquering the world; (4) the current American political class, beginning ca. 1988 and continuing to now, is equally as irrational, kooky, and insane as the German political class, which remains irrational, kooky, and insane(q.v., Angela Merkel).

With that out of the way, we can return to my suspicion of some sort of quiet war being waged between the USA and Germany. It began as a suspicion in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing, with the appearance of Andreas Strassmeir in the circle of acquaintances of convicted alleged bomber Timothy McVeigh. (I saw “convicted alleged” because if you believe in the ANFO bomb theory, then you probably also believe in the magic bullet and unicorns). Strassmeir had been “security chief” to an American white supremacist militia group, who was under FBI suspicion for a role in the bombing, who disappeared, and later turned up in Berlin, where he gave a brief statement to the press at the home of his father, Gunther Strassmeir, who just happened to be then-Chancellor Kohl’s minister-without-portfolio for German reunification. Strassmeir, in other words, was “connected.” Oh, by the way, he was also a graduate of the Hannover military academy and a captain in the German army.  Some believe he was in this country in some role as a member of German intelligence, perhaps on loan to the FBI. In support of that allegation, it is believed that Strassmeir was assisted in leaving the USA – during the height of a nation-wide manhunt for him – by the elite German commando and counter-terrorism team, the GSG-9.

Then of course, there are the well known – and very strange – shorts and puts on the US stock markets in the days immediately prior to 9/11, many of them made through – you guessed it – Deutsche Bank-affiliated corporation Alex Brown. Deutsche Bank itself suffered strange cyber infiltration just seconds before the Twin Towers were struck. And, as I’ve pointed out in my book Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, there is a strange and little known connection of Mohammad Atta, alleged “chief hijacker” of 9/11, to various German connections, his stay in Hamburg, and even a connection between the Bin Ladens, and Deutsche Bank, by a notorious and allegedly pro-Nazi Swiss banker.

Since 9/11, there have been strange actions on the part of the US government, not the least of which was President – then candidate – Obama’s speech in Berlin to wild ovations. This was followed, during his administration, by fines and lawsuits against Deutsche Bank, fines and allegations for environmental violations on the part of German automakers, and, most recently, charges against and fines Deutsche Bank for money laundering. Of course, none of this is connected in the reporting of the stories as being connected to Oklahoma City or to 9/11, but I suspect they are. (See this Reuters article shared by Mr. S.D.  Fed fines Deutsche Bank for anti-money laundering failures.)

Now, I don’t know about you, but this seems to me to be a little “selective”, for I have difficulty believing that Deutsche Bank is the only major banking multinational engaged in money laundering. I suspect many big American banking giants are equally complicit, and the same would hold true for major banks in France, the UK, Italy, Japan, and so on. But no, for some reason, Deutsche Bank seems to be at the top of the list.

But now, it seems to have escalated to a war of words between the German Chancellorin, Angela Merkel, and US President Donald Trump. And Merkel is making her, and Germany’s, and Europe’s, position very clear (this article shared by Ms. B.Z.):

Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners

(For a more “anti-German” and prejudicial analysis, see Germany’s Merkel Says Europe Can’t Rely Upon Great Britain and American Anymore  This article was noticed and shared by Mr.H.B.)

The language here is extraordinarily strong, and, indeed (take note) a first for post-war German chancellors:

Europe “must take its fate into its own hands” faced with a western alliance divided by Brexit and Donald Trump’s presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday.

“The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany.

“We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she added.

Let us back up and recall something I’ve been maintaining for about seven years: the USA has been quietly playing a dangerous geopolitical game in Eastern Europe and the Ukraine, by basing American troops progressively more eastward, in Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states, positioning them between Germany and Russia. Thus, while most analysts have been viewing these moves as “anti-Russian”, I view them as equally “anti-German” in that these movements and deployments were and are meant in my opinion to keep Berlin and Moscow apart, and to make economic coordination between the two European powers – the two most powerful European powers – more difficult if not impossible. It also not only puts pressure on Russia in the Ukraine, it equally denies a more “muscular” German influence in the Ukraine by breaking the direct land link through Eastern Europe.

Merkel’s response to this was to bring her vice chancellor(as Marine Le Pen liked to call him), Francois Hollande with her to try to negotiate an end to the Ukrainian mess directly with Mr. Putin. Equally, after those moves, we also recall then Foreign Minister Steinmeir’s address in Berlin to German businessmen that Germany’s foreign policy was going to have to become much more independent and military, and I suspected then, and continue to suspect now, that the backdrop for his remarks were precisely these American moves in eastern Europe.

The bottom line: Bundeskanzlerin Merkel is not simply “reacting” to Mr. Trump. The geopolitical and economic reality is that Germany was turning east long before the recent G-7 meeting or Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accords.

To put this as plainly as possible: the Merkel government was handed a crisis of opportunity, and Frau Merkel is playing it for all it is worth, setting very long term policy goals into place because of it.

Just what all this may mean will have to wait for tomorrow…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Despite links to cancer, the EU proposes a 10-year license renewal for key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup

Image: Despite links to cancer, the EU proposes a 10-year license renewal for key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
June 7, 2017

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” which is the second-highest classification for substances that can cause cancer. Glyphosate is the main ingredient of Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup.

Instead of protecting public health and removing it from their products, Monsanto hired an army of fraudulent scientists and industry lobbyists to push their agenda. Backed up by the government and mainstream media, fake stories flooded the internet to cast doubts on the cancer-causing properties associated with glyphosate, allowing Monsanto to continue selling their toxic products.

Last July, the European Union (EU) granted an 18-month extension of glyphosate’s approval after a proposal for a full license renewal met opposition from member states and campaign groups. Despite the strong opposition from environmental groups, a new study by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) has reopened the negotiations with EU nations over renewing the license for glyphosate, Reuters reported.

After Europe forced a delay in the decision to renew the license of glyphosate for commercial use, the European Commission is now proposing to extend its use by 10 years. According to the EU body, which regulates chemicals and biocides, glyphosate should not be classified as a cancer-causing substance.

After taking the latest state of scientific research into account, a spokeswoman for the Commission said that they will start to “work with the Member States to find a solution that enjoys the largest possible support.”

Doubts over glyphosate’s safety remain

In 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose carcinogenic or mutagenic properties and has no toxic effect on fertility, reproduction, or embryonic development.

As reported by Reuters, the ECHA study has been welcomed by the EFSA and lobby groups for farmers who use glyphosate-containing products on their fields. No date has been set for the start of the discussions between member states, so there is still hope Europe will maintain its strict safety standards and ban this health damaging chemical from its lawns and fields.

Bart Staes, a Green Party group member of the European Parliament, said that it makes no sense at all to ignore the wide range of risks associated to glyphosate. Despite the clear link between glyphosate and cancer, the decision to seek a 10-year rather than a long-term approval was criticized by glyphosate opponents such as the European Crop Protection group. They called the decision “short-sighted,” claiming it pandered to activists.

Will Europe fall for the bad science practices of the agricultural industry and fake media reports? Or will it make the right decision, putting people before profit? Only time will tell. Since glyphosate was registered in over 130 countries as one of the world’s most heavily used weed killers in 2010, Monsanto will not give up its biggest money-generating product without putting up a big fight. According to analysts, Monsanto is looking at a loss of up to $100 million if Europe bans the use of glyphosate.

Stay informed about the real science behind glyphosate and learn the undeniable truth about the risks associated with this widely used herbicide at Glyphosate.news.

Sources:

SLToday.com

FarmersJournal.ie