Puerto Rico Referendum Votes For Statehood…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 23, 2017

This is one of those “small stories” that occurred in the last few days, that could have huge repercussions, if my high octane speculation of the day has any merit. The story, such as it is, was noticed by many of you, who sent different versions of it, but this one sent by Mr. V.T. from our friends at The Daily Bell is perhaps one “take” worth considering:

Wrong Way! Why Would Puerto Rico Want to Become a State?

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/wrong-way-why-would-puerto-rico-want-to-become-a-state/embed/#?secret=zRFUePAMDj

The first four paragraphs say it all:

Secession has been a hot topic lately from Brexit, to Catalonia, to California; so why is Puerto Rico voting on statehood tomorrow?

It is a non-binding referendum which asks Puerto Ricans if they would rather the territory remain as it is now, become an American state, or go entirely independent. But some say the election has been rigged for the pro-statehood group.

And indeed, they seem to have the most power right now. The big fish in a small pond are seeking to form a delegation of two “Senators” and five “Representatives” in order to lobby Congress to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st American State. Puerto Rico already has a Congresswoman who goes to DC, though she is not a voting member. Go figure she supports statehood, as someone who has the most to gain from it.

But the real reason many Puerto Ricans see statehood as appealing: the territory is bankrupt. Somehow it only took $73 billion in debt (about $20,000 per capita) to bankrupt Puerto Rico, as opposed to close to $20 trillion in debt (over $60,000 per capita) the U.S.A. holds. (Puerto Rico cannot simply print more money to pay their debts in inflated currency as the U.S. does–a back door tax.)

Now, since the referendum, as The Daily Bell staff points out, there have been the usual claims of rigging and so on. Indeed, as far as I can tell, approximately 20% of that island’s voting population actually turned out to vote, leaving one to wonder what the non-participating eligible voting population of that island thinks, and why.

Whatever they’re thinking, however, The Daily Bell is correct: Puerto Rico’s mounting debt crisis is driving the move toward statehood, in the hopes that by becoming a state, the debt gets “absorbed” into the US federal debt, and economic woes on the island are relieved at the expense of the US taxpayer. If so, then Puerto Rico becomes another one-party republic, like California or Illinois, in the greater “union.”

So where’s the high octane speculation in that? Consider, for a moment, the current drive in some places for a constitutional convention as the cure-all for America’s ills. Here I’m in four-square agreement with Catherine Austin Fitts: a constitutional convention is the last thing America needs, especially given the “class” and “character” of the people who favor it, for it would be a convenient way to finalize what she has been calling the “financial coup d’etat”, whereby all the liabilities are rolled into the public sector, and all the assets are privatized, thus writing off all the “bad paper” in the financial system, and “privatizing” the assets of the country to do it, turning it into a corporate fiefdom. If you think things are bad with the media, or corporate behavior, now, just wait. And Puerto Rican statehood would, in my opinion, be one way to use a “crisis of opportunity” either to call for such a convention, or to address constitutional issues by Congressional fiat.

And this is why I entertain suspicions about the referendum to begin with: it seems contrived; a “small thing” that could turn into a very “big thing” in very short order, as the swamp seeks to extend itself. We don’t need a new constitution, we need to observe (for once)the one we already have. I shudder to think of the financial and cultural nightmare the country will become if the current political class – the Hillary Clintons and Jeb Bushes and Chuck Schumers get their hands on it: think of the trumpet-nosed man in the Beatles’ movie, The Yellow Submarine, sucking everything out of a lush valley. None of the people talking about the idea are of the stature of a Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson, and none of them have individual freedom and responsibility as their goal. Thus, if anything, the Puerto Rican referendum seems oddly – and in my opinion, suspiciously – out of place, as the Daily Bell points out: in the context of moves of secession in Catalonia in Spain, of BREXITS in Great Britain, of Venezia in Italy, even of Nuttyfornia, Puerto Rico, bucking the trend, wants to join.

True, lifeboats take much less time to sink than the Titantic, but nonetheless, the Titanic still goes down because the crew steams full steam into a field of icebergs.

So, Puerto Rico may have just provided them with the excuse they need to “restructure everything.” Those in steerage, please wait in line while we get first class passengers into the life boats.

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”.

News & Views From The Nefarium – Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Speaks On The Fallout From #Brexit, Nuclear Weapons & Germany, France & More

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
March 9, 2017

Fallout (and I mean that literally) from the BREXIT: a common nuclear deterrent for the European Union?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06…

Brexit, Britain, & A Renewed Commonwealth: Yes, But What’s The…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 5, 2017

I received two articles this week having to do with Great Britain and the Commonwealth that caught my attention. The first from Ms. K.M., and the second from Mr. S.D. Before we get to those, however, I want to remind people of a bit of high octane speculation that I began to advance shortly before the BREXIT referendum in the United Kingdom. During the campaign prior to that referendum, I observed a number of things that convinced me that there was a certain segment of the British oligarchy that was profoundly unhappy with two things: (1) the growing bureaucratic tyranny of the Brussels-Berlin E.U., and its corollary, discontent in certain segments of the British population – that part of the population with a shred of sanity left – over the growing Islamicization of their country; and, (2) the growing dissatisfaction with the “unipolar world” of Mr. Globaloney. There were, I argued, several signals that indicated “something was afoot” behind the scenes in the British deep state or oligarchy, and chief among these things were three indicators – at least to me and a few others – that the polls prior to BREXIT, which showed the “remain” forces leading – might have been deliberately concocted. By my hack-from-South Dakota lights, there were three signals that spoke very loudly:

(1) The state visit of Mr. Xi Jinping to that nation;

(2) Great Britain’s entry as a board member to the Chinese Asia Infrastructure Development Bank, a move not joined by only two nations, the USA and Japan; and,

(3) The dinner at the Palace with Queen Elizabeth II and then Prime Minister David Cameron’s Vice Premier, during which, according to the British tabloids, the Queen expressed the Royal Displeasure at the way things were proceeding with the European Union.  Of course, interpreting stories coming from the Crown is always hazardous, since British monarchs have, in the last two centuries, exercised their very real and considerable power very quietly. The Crown speaks its own special variety of the “dialect of power” that Vatican watches know as “romanita“.  In this case, the Queen expressed that Royal Displeasure in the form of asking the Vice Premier (so the story went) to name three benefits Britain accrued from membership in the E.U.  It could therefore be argued that Her Majesty was simply asking questions, not expressing “the Royal Displeasure.” But in the context of the other two events named above,  it seemed likely to me at the time. In terms of the logic of the situation, one can perhaps understand why, for from the royal point of view, the income of the civil list might conceivably be a target for the Brussels bureaucrats, M. Jean-Claude Juncker, faithful minion and lackey to Mad Madam Merkel.

The BREXIT happened, and I argued that the next step for Great Britain – a logical and natural one – would be to revive the soft-power culture card of the British Commonwealth. That, indeed, appears to be happening, for as readers of this website are aware, Britain has extended the idea of making the United States an associate member, and the Trump Administration appears to be listening.

From the geopolitical point of view, the move makes sense, for India, a principal member of the BRICSA bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), would be a crack in the emerging Eurasian dike, and with British membership in China’s Asia Infrastructure Bank, Britain has carefully positioned itself as a go-between between the West and that bloc, and that during a time when Brazil’s participation has been severely diminished due to the overthrow of Dilma Rouseff as that nation’s president.

Now there’s this confirmation in the article shared by Ms. K.M.:

A Future of the English-Speaking People

Notably the article appeared in the US magazine Foreign Affairs, the darling of the Council on Foreign Relations, long known to be the “official organ” of the Rockefailure interests, as the Economist is to that of the Rottenchilds. This article, notably, stresses the very same soft power card:

Legal systems of Common Law, a relentless defense of democratic principles, English as first language, common business practices, and traditional support for free trade are the glue that holds together countries that are geographically so distant. Cultural ties lower transaction costs between countries and foster trust. No wonder that, in making foreign direct investments, the United States shows a strong preference for Anglo-Saxon countries, with about 23 percent of total American foreign direct investment going to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

In finance, technology, science, and trade, the Anglosphere already plays a dominant role, albeit in an informal way. But there are also formal means of cooperation, including the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group; the Air and Space Interoperability Council, which aims to make members’ defense systems interoperable; and the Rhodes Scholarship, which brings students from around the world to study at Oxford University. More recently, New Zealand has offered to send London its top trade negotiators to augment the British civil service as it prepares to renegotiate hundreds of trade agreements with the rest of the world. And a recent poll found overwhelming support within Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom for granting nationals reciprocal rights to live and work freely among the four countries.

And notably, the CFR article also views the Commonwealth-Anglo-Sphere “revival” in terms very different from the top-down centralizing and federalizing experiment of the E.U. as a model for a multi-polar world, and it does so without nary a peep of protest, indicating that at least certain factions within Mr. Globaloney’s house realize that a different tack is needed from the vowel-impaired unipolar American empire visions of Mr. Zbgnw Brzznsk:

To be sure, the Anglosphere would never be a European Union among English-speaking nations. After all, it would be the by-product of a time when states seek to regain full sovereignty, cooperating when interests coincide but competing when they diverge. The institutions of the Anglosphere would be open and not exclusive, allowing each nation to pursue its regional goals independently. So, for instance, Australia would be free to work on trade relationships with its Asian partners after Trump has dismissed the Trans Pacific Partnership. London, meanwhile, would be free to entertain post-exit relations with Europe.

The article goes on to say that the UK and US will retain NATO as their preferred alliance structure. The unspoken factor here is not Russia; it’s Germany, for NATO serves – to borrow the observations of Mr. Brzznsk – as much as a check on potential German re-militarization as it does on ostensible Russian ambitions. My prediction? Germany will be forced to remilitarize rather heavily, regardless of what NATO does or does not do, and there will thus be pressure on NATO’s structure to be “revised.”

But any revival of the Commonwealth, in the form I and now the CFR article has suggested, will require a “project” sufficiently large to bring together the Commonwealth. And for that, we’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About 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”.

Brexit & Revitalization The Common Wealth: The USA As Associate Member?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 27, 2017

In the aftermath of the BREXIT vote, I began to argue in blogs and in various interviews, that the next step geopolitically for Great Britain would be to play the soft power card, in the form of revivifying the British Commonwealth of nations. My reasons for thinking this was in the cards were various, and spread out over several  blogs and interviews. Here were some of those reasons: (1) elements of the British deep state, including apparently the Queen herself, were increasingly disappointed not only with the EU and the loss of national sovereignty, but with the unipolar and multicultural (read, Gramscian Marxist) direction things were going; (2) a significant segment of the British population was fed up with the growing Islamicization of Britain; and (3) Britain was pursuing, independently of the EU, it’s own relationship and trading policy with China, hosting the state visit of Mr. Xi Jinping to that country, and joining, as a member of the board, China’s Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. Finally, (4) Britain continued to be alarmed at the growing power and influence of Russia, in particular Russia speaking openly about the West abandoning its core cultural principles and appealing directly to those elements in the West with decidedly traditional cultural sympathies. Russia was playing the soft power card, and playing it well.

In this context, I was arguing that the United Kingdom had certain unique advantages – all of them cultural – that the European Union, firmly under Germany’s thumb, did not: Britain had dramatically influenced the expansion of an English-speaking culture, with English institutions, concepts of jurisprudence, and so on, over a vast area of the globe. Britain could, I argued, if it played its cards right, play that soft power card and create an immense bloc of economic and cultural interests. But this would be impossible under the aegis of the globaloney-multicultural-unipolar philosophy. The way to do this would be to stress the cultural heritage and institutions, and the British Commonwealth was ready-to-hand.

This last week, a number of regular readers of this website, particularly in the United Kingdom, shared an article which appears to confirm this analysis and prediction, and moreover, to do so in a very astonishing way:

USA could be ‘associate member’ of Commonwealth to reap rewards from forgotten ‘treasure

While this article is fairly short, the first four paragraphs contain a number of bombshells that appear to support my arguments from months ago, rather substantially:

The United States could eventually become an “associate member” of the Commonwealth, according to plans being drawn up by the Royal Commonwealth Society.

The move, which is said to have the backing of the Queen, is believed to have come about because of US President Donald Trump’s love of Britain and the Royal Family.

With the UK making plans to leave the European Union (EU) officials are keen to build up international relations through the Commonwealth in an number of areas, including trade.

Director of the Royal Commonwealth Society Michael Lake told The Telegraph: “The UK rather left this treasure in the attic, and forgot about it because people were so glued to Brussels.” (Emphasis added)

I cannot help but think that since this plan “is said to have the backing of the Queen”, that it may have been in the works for some time, since we all recall the story from last year, prior to the BREXIT referendum, that the Queen had invited Mr. Cameron’s vice-premier to the palace for tea and dinner, during which the Queen allegedly asked him is he could name three incontestable benefits Britain was reaping from the EU. The message was clear: the Queen was casting a skeptical eye on the whole business.

There was another wrinkle that seldom…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About 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”.

All Eyes On France? Behind The Scenes…

conspiracy
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 22, 2017

For some time I’ve been urging that the current political-cultural climate should be viewed “whole”, and that we’re witnessing an historical arc of unprecedented uniqueness. We are, I’ve been urging, in one of those periodic paradigm shifts that seems to happen about once every five hundred years, the last one being the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Peace of Westphalia, which basically cemented our modern laissez faire attitude to religion and the secular state. But this current change, I’ve been urging, is unlike any other in prior human history, and hence has no real precedents. It’s being driven by unprecedented technological change and development which in turn is rendering more and more human labor productivity moot, and that in turn impacts the financial system and model under which we currently operate moot. German finance minister Wolfgang Schaueble has stated that the debt growth model is over. There is no way forward, he argues, that is not a reform. Reading between the lines a bit, what Herr Schaueble is actually saying is that there is no way out of the current mess that does not involve increase in equity finance, in production, and hence, in human productivity.

As a component of all this, I’ve also been arguing that the current political cycle in the west, which has seen historic elections in the United Kingdom with the BREXIT referendum and more recently the overwhelming parliamentary vote to move forward with leaving the E.U., with the recent American presidential election cycle, and with the upcoming national elections in France, the Netherlands, and Germany, must also be viewed whole. In my opinion, we’ve been witnessing “deep state factional revolts” against the prevailing globaloney neo-con neo-lib agendas that have formulated domestic and foreign policy in these nations. Recall, for example, the strange story from last year of Queen Elizabeth inviting the British vice-premier to the palace for dinner and tea, during which she expressed, in the form of questions, reservations about the whole E.U. experiment. Then BREXIT happened, and Cameron and said vice premier were gone.

With the growing opposition to the immigration and refugee policies of Brussels and Berlin, I’ve also been urging that the upcoming votes in France, the Netherlands, and Germany will be of similar cultural and historical importance, and for the moment, France, and the candidacy for the presidency of Marine Le Pen, is front and center, and for several reasons. Not the least of these reasons involves the ability of private groups not only to lobby for domestic policy changes but to pursue a variety of censorship practices and other “active measures” to affect cultural change. So, as you ponder the upcoming French elections, consider these stories. The first was shared by Mr. V.T.:

Soros Funds Google to Stop Populist Le Pen

http://www.infowars.com/soros-funds-google-to-stop-populist-le-pen/embed/#?secret=C1pxEnIKPw

Well, we’ve seen similar attempts to censor news by altering search engine algorithms before. Same tactic, same agenda, only this time, it’s Ms. Le Pen in the cross hairs. Recently Wikileaks divulged the CIA’s attempts to gain information on French candidates during their 2012 election, presumably for the purpose of influencing the outcome:

Wikileaks Exposes CIA Involvement In French 2012 Presidential Election

Clearly, nationalist Le Pen would not be at the top of the list of “desirable outcomes,” neither in 2012, and especially now with the EU in tatters from Mad Madame Merkel’s immigration policies. Bluntly put, without France, there is no E.U. And Ms. Le Pen has been advancing the idea of a FREXIT.

The real focus of my concern today is really these hidden influences – particularly from so-called non-government organizations like the various foundations of Darth Soros – on domestic and foreign policy, an influence Ms. Le Pen is almost certain to mention and exploit, for the tide is turning, as this article shared by Mr. V.T. also points out:

Lawmakers probe US funding for Soros groups, left-wing causes in Europe

Consider the opening paragraphs in this regard:

Report alleges George Soros is meddling in foreign affairs

George Soros’ alleged meddling in European politics has caught the attention of Congress.

Concerns about Soros’ involvement most recently were raised by the Hungarian prime minister, who last week lashed out at the Soros “empire” and accused it of deploying “tons of money and international heavy artillery.”

But days earlier, Republican lawmakers in Washington started asking questions about whether U.S. tax dollars also were being used to fund Soros projects in the small, conservative-led country of Macedonia.

Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., led a group of House lawmakers in writing to Ambassador Jess Baily — an Obama appointee — demanding answers. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundations as part of a broader concern that the U.S. Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.

A few days ago I blogged about the necessity for another “Reece” committee to investigate such foundation activity. It appears, in effect, that this is a possibility waiting in the wings. But the implications are indeed dire for Mr. Globaloney, for once such an investigation is underway, similar activities of private citizens meeting to make policy might come under scrutiny… for example, the Bilderberg group.

The problem confronting those interests now is the fact that such investigations are under way already: Frau Merkel faces parliamentary committees in the Bundestag, and if Ms. Le Pen is elected or even has a strong showing and manages to gain seats in the French national assembly, one can expect similar investigations to occur in France, and with all the power of the French bureaucracy, this could indeed be quite revealing. It would be quite a stretch of the imagination to believe that the French DST was not fully apprised of his activities. In Macedonia and Hungary, protests over his activities are under way, and Hungary is investigating. And Hungary, let us recall, has “historical” connections to Russia and to Russian intelligence, which similarly would have its own thick “Soros dossier.”

If it happens, then let’s hope those committees in various countries will “compare notes.” That’s probably what really has Darth Soros, Mr. Globaloney par excellence, and his ilk, worried. And that’s probably why they will spare no effort to keep Ms. Le Pen out of the Elyse Palace.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About 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”.

A Pivotal Year For Mankind

A Pivotal Year For Mankind
Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
December 28, 2016

The year 2016 has been pivotal one for mankind. The foreign and economic policies of the USA are in shambles as the Obama era ends. A new President, one with no political experience, takes office in some days having promised to “make America great again.” He has promised to “drain the swamp” of special interest corporate influence in Washington yet has chosen his cabinet from the banks of those special Wall Street interests, has chosen his national security and Pentagon figures from US military generals, and has chosen no fewer than five cabinet members who are billionaires, and seeks counsel of geopolitical architects of war such as Henry Kissinger

The European Union is nearing a dissolution of the Brussels construct that is so anti-democratic. Not only Brexit, but now also likely in coming months Italy, Hungary, Greece, even France are possible candidates to leave the dysfunctional European Union. The Euro project has created deeply divided EU. The refugee crisis that has been created by Brussels, and by the German government, is causing social unrest and conflict unprecedented in peacetime.

To the east of the EU, despite continuing economic sanctions, Russia has decisively turned to the east and cooperation with China has deepened on all levels, a geopolitical nightmare for Washington. China for its part is engaged in the largest infrastructure construction in history, its One Bridge, One Road, new high-speed rail and deep-water port shipping infrastructure linking for the first time undeveloped resources and potential markets across Eurasia. The Washington policy of war by proxy to destroy Syria’s regime has decisively failed. Russia is emerging as a major power after a quarter century of abject humiliation by the Western NATO powers after 1991.

And Russia has taken decisions that will benefit all mankind by its law banning all planting of Genetically Modified seeds or GMO. Russia is, as a result, emerging as one of the most healthy natural food producers on the planet, in direct opposition to the USA which has allowed GMO to completely takeover American food.

It’s becoming increasingly clear to more people that the agenda of GMO, of Monsanto, which soon will vanish into the bowels of Bayer AG of Germany, is one of harm, not of feeding the hungry world. Its special agrichemicals like Roundup are labelled “probable carcinogens” by the WHO, yet governments ignore independent tests showing the harm. While Russia has just taken a courageous decision to ban all GMOs, China’s government looks set, despite the domestic opposition, to promote GMO as “biotechnology,” a huge error.

As we begin a new year we find our world beset with problems, with hate, murder, power addiction, and at the same time we find more pockets of hope, of life, of optimism that our world is weary of the endless wars and genuinely wanting peace. May peace, not war, be the hallmark of the coming year!

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

 

What’s The Bill For Brexit? A Modest Proposal And Memo For Prime…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 22, 2016

Just when you thought it was safe to venture out of the European Union box, you get presented a bill for 50 Billion pounds, according to this story shared by Mr. R.M.:

UK faces Brexit settlement bill of up to £50 billion, sources say

There’s something here that grabbed my eye, and it presages a looming fight between London and Brussels. Consider these statements carefully:

The calculation is believed to include the obligation for the UK to pay into the EU Budget until the end of 2020, having signed up to the Multiannual financial framework already, as well as the UK’s share of outstanding pensions liabilities and other payments associated with loan guarantees.

The Czech Republic’s Europe minister, Tomas Prouza, reportedly said the huge sums were “only things the UK has already committed itself to paying”.

When asked if British people should expect a bill worth tens of billions of pounds, Mr Prouza responded: “Definitely.

“This is what the UK has already committed to pay, and we would expect that the UK would honour its commitments. It will be one of the first issues coming up on the table.”

Downing Street said the UK would meet its obligations while it remained a member of the EU – but any financial settlement after that would be a matter for negotiation.

“Decisions on how UK taxpayers’ money is spent will be decisions for the UK to take moving forward,” a No.10 source said. (Emphasis added)

In other words, the Brussels bureaucrats are dictating that London has to fully honor all its EU commitments to 2020, even if it leaves the EU before then, and that includes Brussels telling the UK how it is going to spend that money.  And London, of course, is saying, in effect, that the idea that Britain would have to continue to pay full membership obligations are that it is no longer fully a member after leaving the EU is  “just plain barmy!” Of course, London has a point: if the U.K. leaves the EU say, in 2018,  why should it have to continue paying its full “membership dues” to a club it is no longer a member of, and doesn’t want to be a member of?

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About 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”.

Brexit Update: Commons Votes Overwhelmingly To Proceed With Brexit

https://gizadeathstar.com/2016/12/brexit-update-commons-votes-overwhelmingly-proceed-brexit/

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 11, 2016

Well in case you haven’t heard, there’s been some grumbling of shocked defeat across the pond in the United Kingdom, where globaloneyist sore losers are trying to pull rabbits out of their increasingly threadbare hats to try to get Great Britain to remain in the European (dis)Union. In Britain they started off calling these “remainers”, which quickly became “remoaners,”  doubtless because the moaning chorus has been led by M. Jean-Claude Juncker (apparently no relation – other than common shared concepts and attitudes – to the Prussian landowners of yesteryear). Juncker, of course, has about as much warmth and charm as a black mamba and has been moaning ever since the results of the BREXIT referendum. His latest opus of tyranny was to urge European leaders not to allow BREXIT-like referenda in their various countries, because, as he put it in between hisses, if they should do so, everyone would vote to leave the EU, leaving poor M. Juncker to slither back to whatever technocratic paradise that hatched him. Life is so very difficult, and it is so hard to be an unimaginative bureaucratic tyrant these days… moan moan moan.

You may recall that just a few weeks ago, a British court handed down a “defeat” for the BREXITers, ruling that the referendum was non-binding, and that Parliament itself would have to formally vote to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Of course, there were discussions and debates about something called the “crown prerogative” and whether or not Mrs. May could invoke it and bypass Parliament, but this discussion, like the British constitution itself, remains obscure, located somewhere between the perukes in the Old Bailey and afternoon tea, and accessible only to the mandarins of the Inner Temple with post-graduate degrees in Advanced Jurisprudential Obscurontology(See Charles Dickens, Bleak House).

It seems, however, that Prime Minister May has other ideas about moving things along, and may have pulled a fast one on the remoaners, according to various versions of this story that many readers of this website in the United Kingdom sent me:

BREXIT VICTORY: Remoaner plot CRUSHED as MPs vote to APPROVE triggering of Article 50

The story is simple enough: May called the bluff of the remoaners:

In a landslide victory for Brexiteers a Government amendment binding MPs to respect the prime minister’s Brexit timetable in return for a greater role in the negotiations passed by 461 votes to 89.

The history defining paragraph states that parliament “calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017”  – effectively ending any Remoaner plot to indefinity delay divorce talks with Brussels.

It also basically makes the current Supreme Court proceedings over whether or not Mrs May can trigger Article 50 without parliament’s consent redundant, because MPs are now signed up to starting the process anyway.

Government insiders were tonight hailing the passing of the motion as a huge success, with senior Brexiteers saying Labour and rebel europhiles “had their bluff called” and chose to respect the will of the people.

As the article also notes, all of this was achieved by a “compromise” that the May Government would have to inform members of Parliament of its negotiating strategy.

But then we have a bit – well, not so much a bit, but an entire opera – of a waffle in these statements by Robin Walker, Minister for Exiting the European Union:

Just before the decision was taken Robin Walker, the Minister for Exiting the European Union, urged MPs to back the amendment, which he said would make sure Government was “scrutinished” over its Brexit approach without “binding its hands” in negotiations with Brussels.

He told the House: “The Government is getting on with the job of delivering on the mandate delivered by the British people. We are taking our time to get the details right. We are moving on from 40 years of EU membership doing this properly and effectively is a complex challenge with a wide range of outcomes. (Emphasis added)

Now I have no doubt that the May Government is serious about moving forward with the BREXIT, and I have no doubt that Mr. Walker simply committed one of those mistakes we all make when we are under pressure and speaking more or less ex tempore in a public venue, when he said…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About 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 Upcoming Italian Constitutional Referendum

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
December 1, 2016

As I’ve been urging for a few months, there’s two countries in Europe to watch right now: France, and Italy. I’ve already addressed some of my reasons for saying to watch the former country in blogs earlier this week, so now it;s time to turn to Italy, and this this article from Zero Hedge shared by Mr. V.T.:

Beppe Grillo: “The Amateurs Are Conquering The World Because The ‘Experts’ Destroyed It”

If you’ve been following the career of Italian opposition leader, Signor Beppe Grillo, it may seem at first glance that he is reflecting similar pro-sovereignty, pro-national culture sentiments that have been seen at work in the BREXIT referendum, the recent American political election/referendum, or the similar movements in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, or Hungary. But Grillo is thinking along much broader, and deeper lines, and it’s worth taking a look at what he sees at stake not only in and for Italy, but for the world. Consider these statements:

Perhaps the most notable point brouth up by Grillo is his answer whether he would govern Italy if given the opportunity, after the failure of Renzi. This is what he said:

We want to govern, but we don’t want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision. We’re talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that.

From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an operating system called Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even suggest laws in their own name. This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have done it.

If that is Grillo’s checklist of conditions he needs to take charge, he may find more appropriate career choices elsewhere, unless of course he merely wants to be constantly “in the running”, without actually ever winning.

Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of “experts” by amateurs.

euronews: “Do you think appealing to people’s emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?”

Beppe Grillo: “This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don’t have a political project, you’re not capable, you’re imbeciles, amateurs… And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I’m rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that’s the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we’ll also get to face it.”
(Bold emphasis in the original, italicized emphasis added)

What grabbed my attention here is something I’ve advocated from time to time, and which we saw reflected to a certain degree in the recent Trump campaign and its heavy reliance on social media to reach out directly to supporters, in conjunction with massive campaign rally personal appearances, namely, the use of the internet to bring back a measure of direct and immediate individual participation and monitoring of representative institutions, legislatures, and representatives themselves. Grillo is in effect advocating even that citizens can even propose laws. Notably, he is not proposing the abolition of representative legislatures, but rather a process working in tandem with them.

There’s something else that Grillo said, however, and this really grabbed my attention, and I hope it does yours as well, for Grillo gets that we need to start thinking, and start thinking now and in a deep way, about the nature of the relationship between finance, our current financial “work-for-pay” system, and politics, for as we all know, technology is now progressing to the point that the normal “create jobs” solution to economic woes simply has to start thinking outside the box. Here’s what Grillo said:

Beppe Grillo
“We want to govern, but we don’t want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.

We’re talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that.” (Italicized, and italicized-boldface emphases added)

One might be tempted to view his remarks are being all too capable of being perverted into the typical “centralized and organized management” sorts of socialist solutions, and in Italian politics, there’s always that very real danger. What catches the eye, however, is the phrase “the start of working for other payment,” which implies a redefinition both of payment and media of exchange, as well as the nature of work itself; if autos are being made, assembled, and perhaps even transported by driverless trucks and lorries that are effedtively nothing but transportation robots, then what happens to human…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell

About 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”.