German Soldier Busted Posing as Refugee to Stage False Flag Terror – #NewWorldNextWeek

Source: TheCorbettReport |
May 4, 2017

Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. In this week’s episode:

Story #1: Russia’s Mir Payment Cards To Give Visa, MasterCard a Run For Their Money

China and Russia Creating Alternate Banking System

China’s SWIFT Alternative and the (Engineered) Death of the Dollar

NWNW Flashback: Russia, China In Talks to Make SWIFT Alternative

Story #2: German Soldier Posed As Syrian Refugee In False Flag Terror Plot

Background story: Germany investigating how a soldier falsely registered as a refugee to try and commit a #FalseFlag terror attack

Gladio B and the Battle for Eurasia

Story #3: Austria Wants To Tax Tweeting, Searching, Liking On The Internet

Indian Government Says Citizens Don’t Have Absolute Right Over Their Bodies

‘13.5 crore Aadhaar accounts compromised’

Hundreds Suffer as City Shuts Down Church for Helping the Homeless

#GoodNewsNextWeek: Being In Nature Naturally Makes You Feel Better


Fukushima & That Russo-Japanese Cooperation

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 2, 2017

If you’ve been watching the fallout from the Russo-Japanese Onshen summit last December, some of this news won’t surprise you. Consider the following articles shared by Mr. S.D.:

Japan pursues currency swaps with ASEAN members

BusinessTrends Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Mail April 27, 2017 3:55 am JST Japan banks to test blockchain-based money transfer

Of course, we’re told the usual story about why Japan would want to negotiate bi-lateral currency arrangements with other Asian nations: it’s all to stop the spread of the Chinese Yuan as a regional (and eventual global) reserve currency. But at the same time it’s experimenting with blockchain technology. By now regular readers here know my thoughts on “digital currencies” and the pressure from Mr. Globaloney to move to a cashless system: no digital system is 100% secure, and yes, I suspect that eventually people will figure out a way through quantum encryption as well. These heresies uttered, the bi-lateral currency story should be read, in my opinion, the same way Mr. Abe’s rearmament should be read: it’s a long term hedge against the increasingly erratic and nutty policies of Empire America, Inc., and thus, while Tokyo is mouthing continued support of Washington, it realizes in the long term that it can no longer count on Washington.

In the process, Japan is remaking the geopolitics of the Western Pacific.

But there was another story that I wanted to include here, and it’s the main focus today; the rest is, so to speak, the context in which to read it. This article was shared by Mr J.S., and it’s hugely important:

Must he do everything? Putin offers to help clean up Japan’s Fukushima

This brings me to my very high octane speculation of the day, for there’s an entirely different context for Japanese rearmament. As regular readers here may also know, I have long regarded Japan (and Germany) as being “turn the screw” nuclear and thermonuclear powers, i.e., as nations that could (and probably have) manufacture all the parts for nuclear and thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems, and simply assemble them quickly – turn the screw – in case of an emergency. As regular readers here may also recall, when the Fukushima disaster occurred, there were those in Japan who suspected – correctly in my opinion – that the disaster may not have been merely an act of nature, for it occurred in an interesting political context: a new government had taken power, and that new government was intent on mending relations with China. That new government was also serious about shutting down the American Empire’s base on Okinawa, long a sore spot in post-war Japanese-American relations. There was talk of state visits of the Japanese Emperor to Beijing. The then US Secretary of Defense, Mr. Robert Gates, issued a statement about these developments that could only be interpreted as a direct threat to the Japanese government. Then, the earthquake and the tsunami. Many Japanese suspected then that the entire incident was deliberate. I maintain that strong suspicion to this day. In the aftermath of Fukushima, there were also a number of articles that revealed that the Japanese may have been conducting a covert nuclear weapons program. Japanese researchers pointed out the peculiar alignment of the earthquake with political events, and the rise of Mr. Abe’s government. Similarly, former assistance secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Austin Fitts, has pointed out the Indonesian tsunami occurred after a week of inexplicable trades in Indonesian sovereign securities.

In any case, it is in the wake of Fukushima that Mr. Abe has pursued his rearmament plans, setting aside for the first time in postwar history the “percentage cap” on defense spending that was written into the Japanese constitution. This factor has always influenced my thinking that the Fukushima disaster – an ongoing disaster, let us remember – was not merely an act of nature. If anything, it was more like an act of war, with rearmament being Japan’s response. This of course is not a reading of the events that most people – and particularly the corporate controlled media – will accept. Nonetheless, it is the reading and understanding I’ve always used to interpret these events; for me, these events are to be viewed whole: Mr. Gates’ threatening remarks to Japan, Fukushima, and Mr. Abe’s rearmament. And now, we can add Bi-lateral currency agreements to that list.

Which brings us, at last, to today’s high octane speculation about that last article. I want to draw attention to the opening two paragraphs of this rather short, but highly important article:

On Thursday, 27 April, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, in Moscow. A myriad of topics were discussed as part of the talks, many of which had to do with increased Japanese investments into Russia and Russia’s ability to provide Japan with its energy supplies. “Peaceful atomic energy” featured as a possible solution to Japan’s energy needs.

On this basis, Vladimir Putin offered to help clean up the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant, “with the most modern technology available.”  (Bold emphasis added, italicized emphasis in the original)

This raises two prospects to my mind.

Prospect (High Octane Speculation) number 1:”

When the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred, the Soviet Union was in its last long decline; Mikhail Gorbachev was trying desperately to revitalize the system and to head off an economic collapse. Chernobyl occurred and many Russians heroically and sacrificially gave their lives to prevent the disaster from becoming even worse than it was. But Chernobyl also occurred in another unusual political context, one which I’ve also found to have the vague hint of the odor of Fukushima about it, for as the Soviet Union was in its death throes, there were a number of large earthquakes just prior to the final dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the reunification of Germany. One of these occurred in earthquake-prone Georgia, home of the then Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. At the time I wondered – as some Japanese did after Fukushima – if the Soviet Union had been hit with earthquake weapons.

Assume, for the sake of today’s high octane speculation, that it was. If so, then  by talking about Fukushima, then perhaps Japan and Russia are “comparing notes” and “suspicions”. If so, then this means they could also be discussing – very secretly of course – the means, techniques, and technologies for identifying the use of such weapons.

Prospect (High Octane Speculation) number 2:

Note the final statement that Mr. Putin is offering to help Japan clean up the Fukushima plant “with the most modern technology available.” This implies that the Russians may have developed technologies for nuclear accidents, most likely as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. In this respect, it’s worth recalling that Lt. Col. (US Army, Ret) Tom Bearden has long maintained that the Soviets developed an entirely different technology for the treatment of radioactivity. There have been videos of technologies that alter the rates and degree of radioactive decay (yes, even on ABC’s Good Morning America, years ago). The point here is that Russia may have some technological advantage that is not entirely public record.

And in the context of a North Korean problem, they’re offering to share it with Japan, and to help clean up Fukushima.

And if all this high octane speculation is true – and it’s a mighty big “if” – then there was just another quiet geopolitical earthquake in the Western Pacific.

See you on the flip side…
Read More At:

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”.

Russia, Japan & The Kurils: Moving Forward

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 30, 2017

Last December Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, met in Japan for the Onshen summit. It was, by any viewpoint, a significant meeting. It was the first visit by a Russian head of state and government to the island empire since the end of World War Two. Indeed, the two countries are still, technically, at war, since no peace treaty has been signed between the two countries. It was, notably, not technically a state visit, since Mr. Putin and the Japanese Emperor did not meet. It was, so to speak, all business.

The sticking point for a peace treaty has been the Russian occupation of the Kuril islands.  But Abe and Putin did something quite unique: the tabled all discussion of the political status for the Kurils in order to reach a novel economic and geopolitical approach: Russia needs Japanese finance and investment in its ambitious plans to develop Siberia, and it needs Japan to offset growing Chinese influence in Siberia. Japan, for its part, needs a more secure supply of energy, and Siberia, close to hand, would be a much more secure supply source than hauling tankers through the south China sea from the Middle East.

That at least, was my view last December, and it remains my view now. In those talks, what began to emerge was the use of the Kuril Islands as the economic zone that would be the lynchpin for this Russo-Japanese cooperation.

Now that development seems to be moving ahead in reality: it’s no longer merely a matter of discussion between Mr. Abe and Mr. Putin, but is moving into the detailed planning stage according to this article from Russia’s TASS:

Tokyo to draw up cooperation plans for South Kurils and heed locals’ opinions

There’s much food for thought and high octane speculation here, but I want to focus on these statements:

Japan’s government is going to draw up proposals on joint economic activities in the South Kuril Islands, while taking into consideration the views of the Russians who live there, stated Japan’s Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshige Seko in an exclusive interview with TASS.

He will accompany Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, during his talks with the Russian President Vladimir Putin scheduled for April 27.

Within the Council of Ministers, Hiroshige Seko is responsible for economic cooperation with Russia.

“Last December, he mentioned, the two leaders met in Japan and agreed to start consultations on possible cooperation in fishing, sea farming, tourism, healthcare and other fields within the framework of the ‘special system’ for the four Northern islands. In Japan, a special Council for Joint Economic Activity has been created to implement the agreement and I have been appointed its Chief Deputy. Now the ministers and bodies involved, are working to set out certain plans. I think we will be able to develop mutually beneficial projects if we efficiently use the potential of the islands, a territory with rich natural resources and geographic layout, and if we take the opinions of locals into consideration.”

Lest one think this is all “wishful thinking” on Japan’s part, the TASS article concludes this way: “This March, the two countries’ deputy ministers held the first consultations in Tokyo on joint economic activities for the South Kuril Islands. The two sides exchanged their proposals, and it is likely that the issue will be finalized during the upcoming meeting on April 27 between the leaders of Russia and Japan. Prime Minister Abe is putting forward the idea of carrying out cooperation projects in the South Kuril Islands within the framework of the ‘special system’ so as not to contravene the legal stances of the countries regarding the status of these territories.” (emphases added)

In other words, the signals that were sent during the Onshen summit now appear to be close to finalization: Japan appears to be willing, for the foreseeable future, to drop the legal status of the Kurils in return for a joint Russo-Japanese “trade zone” consisting of the islands. In other words, the Russian and Japanese negotiating teams have worked out the details for such an arrangement and are close to a formal agreement.

So what’s the high octane speculation here? With North Korea’s always kooky leadership looking increasingly unstable, and America’s ability to deal with it looking increasingly feeble – after all, we’ve been dealing with it since the Clinton administration, and nothing has changed – Tokyo is in my opinion increasingly skeptical in private about the viability of its alliance with the American empire. As I indicated during the Onshen summit, and in several interviews, Tokyo will continue to mouth public support for that alliance, and to insist that nothing will ever change. But as I’ve also indicated, Japanese rearmament is as much about its skepticism of America as it is about “making its contribution to the security of the Pacific rim.” Hence, it needs Russia, and Russian energy, as much as Russia needs Japan, and Japanese technology, engineering, and finance.
The Kurils are to be the “trial cooperation zone” and to function as the gateway for that two-way flow of goods, expertise, services, and energy. Make no mistake, this is a long term development and relationship that is emerging between the two countries, and it will change the balance of power in the Pacific. But there is something else that might be in the making, and it is really high octane speculation, but it’s worth mentioning since it would seem to fit a broader pattern: these types of economic agreements and “bi-lateral agreements” have become the modus operandi of the Shanghai Cooperation organization, otherwise known as the BRICSA bloc. And with such bilateral agreements have come something else: agreements between various Shanghai member states to trade directly in their respective national currencies and to by-pass the dollar. Indeed, India and Iran signed such a memorandum of understanding, and this, I strongly suspect, is one reason Washington has pressured India to move to a cashless system and to withdraw large denomination rupee notes. One cannot trade with Iran in Rupees, if there are no rupees to trade.
I suspect, eventually, that as the Kuril economic cooperation zone expands and trade between Russia and Japan grows, that those countries might decide to move to a similar bi-lateral currency and clearing arrangement, by-passing the dollar. If that happens, then that long term relationship will have become a strategic one. It won’t happen immediately, or overnight, nor before Mr. Abe finishes his rearmament plans.
But, I strongly suspect it will eventually happen.
See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

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”.

US Missile Defense: Russia, China & The Moon

cosmic war

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 7, 2017

When Mr. “B” shared the following article with me, along with his thought-provoking email, I had to read the article. Sure enough, I did so, with his predicted “jaw dropper” reaction:

Russia and China Team up Against US ‘Defensive’ Expansion

While there have been a spate of articles recently about growing Russo-Chinese defense and security ties, matching their growing financial and economic ties, this one left me stunned, for there was a statement within it that caught my eye, and Mr. B’s as well, and I’m sure the reader saw it as well. As one can imagine, this one fueled my “high octane speculation” mode to the nth degree. Here’s the statement, and a bit of surrounding context:

Russia and China are tired of Washington’s “defensive” military installations in their backyards — and they’re already taking action.

According to the Atlantic Council and other responsible thinkers, the United States reserves the right to park its missile shields anywhere it wants, whether it be in Europe, East Asia, or the dark side of the Moon. This is because placing missile shields all over the place is an important cornerstone of Washington’s ingenious plot to encourage Beijing and Moscow to put aside their differences and form a long-term security and military partnership.

Take for example Washington’s decision to deploy Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems to South Korea.

The Americans claim that their missile defense systems will defend the free world against North Korea. But do they think Putin and Xi were born yesterday? (Emphasis added)

There is, to be sure, a very  tongue-in-cheek attitude in the article, for example, this statement from the second paragraph quoted above:

This is because placing missile shields all over the place is an important cornerstone of Washington’s ingenious plot to encourage Beijing and Moscow to put aside their differences and form a long-term security and military partnership.

But as the article points out, American unipolarism, and its result in pushing Russia and China together, has been a disastrous policy (at least, for the USA):

As China expert Jeff J. Brown explained in an interview:

If the US strikes either China or Russia first, it’s probably World War III and humanity ceases to function as we know it. While there is no announced treaty alliance, we have no way of knowing what Russia and China have agreed to secretly. It is also possible that China and Russia have told NATO back channel to the effect, “You mess with one of us, you deal with us both”. I’ve always wondered if that might be the case, given America’s reluctance to push the pedal to the metal in the Ukraine and the South China Sea.

Now, why am I bothering you with all this. Well, consider, the “tongue-in-cheek” tone appears only once in the article, and that in order to make a very important point about the results of US policy to deploy missile defense systems “all over the place,” in other words, the tongue-in-cheek tone refers to a reality, as Russia and China see it.

And that raises the issue Mr. “B” raised in his email with me: there is no distinction made in the article between the US placing missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia or “the dark side of the Moon.”  As he put it, was this a subtle way of Russia and China saying “we know what you have up there?”

Well, perhaps. But while you’re pondering that possibility, remember that China wants to have a mission to place satellites around the Moon in such a way as to allow them to permanently monitor the “dark” side of it. Why? Because they actually want to send a manned mission to the Moon to land on the dark side, and in order for that to work, and maintain communications with the homeland, a satellite relay network will have to be constructed first. Did Russia Insider just tell us the motivation for that Chinese plan?

See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

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”.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Westphalia, Soft Power, And New…[Part 2]

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 29, 2017

Yesterday I began this two part blog on the following important article that many here sent me: the speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the military academy of the Russian General Staff:

Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

As I noted yesterday, Mr. Lavrov placed his remarks about the Peace of Westphalia  ‘front and center ‘, toward the very beginning of his speech to the academy, and this, I argued, was a strong clue about Russia ‘s  long term  agenda. One might summarize that agenda in the form of two propositions:

(1) if there is to be a  ‘global world order’ then to ensure it does not become a tyranny, it must be based on some  ‘congress ‘ system or mutual recognition of the sovereignty of states, coupled with (2) the notion that such states are to be wholly secular, with no one religion dominating, or conversely, excluded. From the standpoint of domestic policy, this is a logical road for Russia to pursue, for though its religious-cultural heritage is Eastern Orthodox, it has significant populations of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and so on. And this  ‘Westphalian’ approach has been stressed by Mr. Putin repeatedly in his remarks.

But Mr. Lavrov goes on to mention, in this context, something else quite important: the  ‘soft power ‘ or  ‘culture power ‘ card, and he does so, notably, immediately  after  mentioning the Peace of Westphalia: Of course, it takes more than just the size of a country’s territory for it to be considered “big and strong” in today’s world.  There is also the economy, culture, traditions, public ethics and, of course, the ability to ensure one’s own security and the security of the citizens under any circumstances.

Recently, the term “soft power” has gained currency.  However, this is power as well. In other words, the power factor in its broad sense is still important in international relations. Its role has even increased amid aggravated political, social, and economic contradictions and greater instability in the international political and economic system.  We take full account of this fact in our foreign policy planning. (Emphasis added)

What does this mean, or rather, how does this translate into action and policy? A couple of years ago I had a private discussion with a friend who is in the  ‘financial and investment counseling ‘ profession. I told him that one would have to watch future Russian foreign policy statements very carefully, because all the signals I was seeing at that time pointed to a massive increase of Russian use of the  ‘soft power/culture power ‘ card. At the time, I was basing this observation on the way Russia was handling the GMO issue by calling (and later implementing) a complete ban, while calling for genuine long-term studies on its cost-to-benefit aspects, environmental and human health risks and benefits, and so on. At the same time, Mr. Putin was openly speaking against the GMO issue, and from time to time was commenting on the health risks of western vaccine products. In other words,  he was not responding to the issues but rather, aligning Russia with the domestic opposition within the West . Or, to be even more blunt about it: he was playing to the growing sense of many in the West that their concerns were simply not being allowed in the media, in the halls of power, or even being allowed a level playing field and representation. That was just a few years ago.

Now  that program has expanded to represent the cultural concerns across the board: the collapse of morality, the assaults on the Christian basis of western culture, the so-called  ‘war on terrorism ‘ and the covert support by western intelligence agencies of terrorist groups… all of it has come under review by Mr. Putin in recent remarks; consider only his Christmas Eve message. In a certain sense, he was speaking for what many in the west have been calling  ‘populism ‘, but I believe a more accurate term or phrase might be  ‘traditional culturism ‘.  And he  does  raise a valid point: many in the west, this author among them, have grown tired of the shell game being played out in the so-called political parties: there are parties of the  ‘hard ‘ left, the Dummycrooks, Labour, the Social Democrats, and there are parties of the  ‘right ‘ – the  ‘fake opposition ‘ parties – that are really  ‘soft ‘ left: the Republithugs, the Tories, the Christian Democrats, and so on. Both  ‘sides ‘ are infested with globalists, that is to say, with crony crapitalism and with corporate socialists. And that has produced the frustration that, if one pays close attention, Mr. Putin has been addressing in some of his recent remarks.

To put this as plainly as possible: in playing the soft power/culture power card, Mr. Putin has been positioning Russia as  ‘the voice of the opposition ‘, unique among the powers that can be considered  ‘western ‘. It ‘s a decidedly clever strategy, for it accounts for the growing popularity of Russian media among the West, particularly from the disenfranchised  ‘populists ‘ or  ‘traditional culturists ‘, and the response of the oligarchs of the West is very  ‘non-western ‘: to attempt to shut down that media and continue to demonize Russia and anyone paying attention to it or its media. And this too has occasionally brought forth a comment or two from Mr. Putin. It is this strategy of becoming  ‘the voice of the opposition ‘ that I submit might be the  real  motivation for all the  ‘Russian interference in the election ‘ stories one sees in the USA, and even a few trial balloons on that score in Germany. It ‘s an attempt, and a very weak one at that, to break and combat this Russian strategy. Inevitably, matters in the article turn towards defense and security matters, as Russia is, of course, with the USA, one of the world ‘s two premier thermonuclear powers, and by some lights, the premier one, with modern updated delivery systems and by some counts, just slightly more deliverable warheads. But that will have to wait part three, tomorrow…

Read More At:

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”.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Westphalia, Soft Power, And New…

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 27, 2017

Many people sent me this transcription of a recent speech by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking to the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff. Indeed, the speech is quite important for what it says, and to a certain extent, confirms many high octane speculations that I’ve advanced here, and more extensively in private conversations. For our purposes today, Mr. Lavrov stressed many things in his speech, but I want to focus on three: (1) the Westphalian system, (2) the foreign policy of “human rights” that has enabled US unipolarism and interventionism, and (3) the appearance of wholly new types of non-nuclear strategic weapons of mass destruction.

Here’s the article:

Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

(1) The Westphalian System: Notably, Mr. Lavrov mentions the Westphalian system, and later the Congress of Vienna system, and the consequences of not including Russia in similar collective security arrangements that occurred after World War One:

I’m aware that some entertain the notion, which is eagerly picked up by Russophobes, that Russia’s vast geography took shape due to expansion resulting from an internal sense of insecurity. As if the Russians, who for several centuries expanded their territory, were trying to “push back” a potential aggressor. To this, I can say that the greatest misfortunes in the past centuries came to Russia almost always from the West, while Russia, according to Mikhail Lomonosov’s famous dictum, “expanded through Siberia,” bringing different peoples and lands in the East under its wing. Many centuries of experience of harmonious coexistence of different ethnicities and religions within one state now allow Russia to promote a dialogue and form partnerships between cultures, religions and civilisations, which is also what happens within the UN, the OSCE and other international and regional organisations.

Another hallmark associated with our vast Russian territory concerns respect for the state, which is the guarantor of the country’s unity and the security of its citizens. A strong state also underpins an independent foreign policy. In international relations, all of that is embodied in the notion of sovereignty.

The sovereignty of states, their equality as the main subjects of international relations, was substantiated and approved within the Westphalian system that took shape in Europe in the 17th century. Currently, these traditional notions are being questioned in a number of Western countries. They are trying to secure for themselves, for example, the ability to interfere in other people’s affairs under the pretext of non-compliance with all sorts of unilaterally engineered human rights concepts like the so-called “responsibility to protect.” We are against such a distorted interpretation of the most important universal international legal norms and principles. Healthy conservatism with regard to the inviolability of the stabilising foundations of international law unites Russia with most countries of the world. (Emphasis added)

While I’ve commented before on Russia’s apparent anti-Globalism, Mr. Lavrov’s remarks are a reminder that Russia’s is not simply an unthinking opposition; it is, rather, well-thought out and well-considered, and hence, Russia has increasingly returned to the mention of the Westphalian system. As Mr. Lavrov points out (and reading his remarks in context), the heart of the Westphalian system is the recognition of national sovereignty. Reading behind the lines here, what Mr. Lavrov is really saying is that any global system which reduces the role of the nation-state or that eradicates its sovereignty is not a genuinely global order: merely a tyranny imposed on the globe by a certain group in the West who then use “human rights” to justify an imposition of their policies on everyone else. It was a process begun under Jimmy Carter and his so-called “human rights” foreign policy, brainchild of his national security advisor, the vowel-impaired Zbgnw Brzznsk (Zbigniew Brzezinski).

There is, of course, something lurking in Mr. Lavrov’s remarks here which, if carefully considered, will reveal a rather sweeping vision, and Mr. Lavrov, as a careful student of history and culture, will know that this implication, while not explicitly stated in his remarks, is there nonetheless.

The Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which was essentially a religious war, trying to secure Europe for Protestantism, or Romanism. It ended, effectively, with a stalemate.  But as a result, what was recognized was not only the sovereignty of the nation-state over its own internal affairs, other things were also recognized, and they were equally, if not far more, important. The first was the recognition that these nation-states were sovereign, and not the respective religion of their respective princes. In short, the secular state was born, provided it recognized the equal rights of both Protestant and Catholic within its borders, and provided no religious party attempted to impose its own religious law, doctrine, or practice, on the other.

Stop and consider what this means, for by invoking the Westphalia system, Russia has a very long term goal and agenda in mind. Allow yourself to do some high octane “imagination” on what an application of the Westphalian principle would mean: it would mean, for example, an absolute end to Sharia law, and the attempt to impose it on non-Muslim countries or even localities; it would mean Christian churches would have to be allowed to function, freely, openly, and without interference in Muslim lands, and vice versa, mosques to function openly and freely in non-Muslim lands, so long as neither attempted to impose their religion nor seize the power of the state to do so. In a certain sense, the Westphalian principle resembles the so-called “Meccan versus” in the Koran, unhappily set aside by the later “Medinan” verses, where the tolerance of the Meccan revelations are set aside for the “more recent revelations” urging murder and forced conversions.

But there’s more here than meets the eye, but for that, we’ll have to wait for Part Two tomorrow.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

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

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:

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”.