There is an ALTERNATIVE to neo-liberal austerity - Modern Monetary Theory
Guest Post by Stephen Tardrew

Apart from the day to day lies in the media like "the Russians hacked the last US election" all mass media and academics who write or teach about economics work from the same self-interested doctrine known as neoclassical economics, neo-liberalism, the Washington Consensus, or the Chicago School founded by Milton Friedman.

It is an approach to invented by banks and used by the super-rich to formulate policy which benefits them at the expense of everyone else. This is what Margaret Thatcher meant when she said: There Is No Alternative = TINA. Because the banks and their many friends in high places this doctrine has replaced the older dogmas of religion as the one thing no politician, journalist or academic can challenge if they value their careers or their income. Apart from a few genuinely independent voices, all investment advice is also made within this framework. It is the gospel truth for everyone. One very good reason to call it a dogma is that it does not actually explain or predict economic reality. It has little empirical evidence for it, and much that is opposed.

In effect this answers the question asked in the article posted below by Stephen Tardrew, namely: Why is an alternative approach to economic policy like Modern Monetory Theory not even mentioned in any political discussion today? This quite sane and empirically based approach has not effect on the way our economy is discussed by anyone "important" because it is deliberately ignored, suppressed or ridiculed. This doctrine is the "theory" which is used to justify political choices because it reinforces the power and importance of our real rulers, a small number of super-rich individuals and families who control the largest banks and multinationals. Through the doctrines of neo-liberalism they set the agenda for our politicians, an agenda which includes austerity (minimal government services), low taxes on corporations, and privatization.

Why doesn't Modern Monetary Theory have a profound impact on the way we understand the economy?

Neoclassical economics was designed for the gold standard however when the amount of gold was insufficient the US changed to a fiat currency during the Nixon administration. The point about neoclassical economics is that it continually feeds wealth upwards while putting the burden upon the working class, low income and poor. The corporations, banks, financiers and venture capitalists own the government and so they own the message. Remember Marshal Mcluhan "the medium is the message" and Chomsky's "Manufacturing of Consent".

Economics - as understood today in public life - is not a science it is a bunch of self-interested opinions overlain with pseudo mathematical justifications posing as a science when in fact it is a pseudo science. MMT economist simply asked what is the real implication of fiat currency and when they found out the facts were marginalised by conventional academics simply because they had invested their whole careers in a system that was essentially broken and corrupt. Too much to lose for the power brokers. Lots of neoclassical and neoliberal stooges loosing all credibility so they hang on for dear life to their lies. Politicians, including treasurers, are uninformed completely indoctrinated playthings of the corporations, bankers, and financiers.

Don't expect much critical thinking from this lot. Point is MMT is the most science based empirical approach to economics however they do not want you to know the truth. The trillions they offshore is their power base and weapon for hoarding currency while the rest suffer debt servitude and general hardship. And our greed infested PM and his L-NP mates are at the head of the gravy train. Meanwhile Labor sleeps in ignorance.

1. The government is not currency constrained
2. Taxation does not pay for expenditure
3. Bonds are literally government run savings accounts that pay interest and are balance sheet debits not profit and loss debt.
4. Full employment is possible with a Job Guarantee
5. Austerity dries up the money supply and shrinks the economy
6. Governments nearly always need to run a deficit
7. A balanced budget or surplus means more private debt servitude and borrowing for you
8. A government budget is a double entry balance sheet not a profit and loss statement like a family budget
9. Families cannot print currency however treasury can literally print as much as is necessary so a government with a fiat currency can always pay down its debts as long as it controls inflation and prevents over production of commodities.
10. All welfare demands can be reasonably met if we have full employment
11. There is absolutely no need for poverty and hardship

Work by Stephen Tardrew can be found here:

MUST READ: Summary of US Military Plans for Next 20 years
Guest Post by Scott Humor

“Nevertheless, we do not lose our hope that the voice of reason will sooner or later prevail, and that our American colleagues will be aware of the futility and detrimental nature of further sliding down the spiral of sanctions.
“In the meantime, we are beginning to work out the inevitable response to this situation.”

Trump’s new commitment to continue the war in Afghanistan comes as a shock, after all the Americans had voted to stop Washington’s wars around the world.  As a punishment, they are being treated to an artificially created civil conflict, while the deep state continues to use the US infrastructure, financial and human capital and military to pursue its doctrine of perpetual war.

Reading from the teleprompter, Trump not only unveiled plans for open-end war, he also promised to stop revealing any future US plans. It makes sense to look at the plans they have revealed so far to see what to expect. After all, we all have witnessed working of the plan revealed by the general Wesley Clark in 2007 to take out seven countries in five years.

In August 2012, TRISA-Threats published “Operational Environments to 2028: The Strategic Environment for Unified Land Operations”. In this publication, TRADOC G-2 identified potentially contentious OEs and missions the US Army could face, including the OEs of Iran, China, Yemen, North Korea, Pakistan, and Nigeria as possible environments.” For those who don’t know this yet, “Operational Environments” are countries that the US bombs and invades.

THE TRADOC mentioned here is the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. TRISA is Tradoc Intelligence Support Activity. Keep in mind, this 20-year plan written in 2012 prior to the mass migration from Africa and the Middle East to Europe, but it speaks of the European economic and societal collapse by the year of 2028. This plan also speaks of Ukraine becoming a NATO member, even so it was written prior to the Maidan color revolution and the war in Ukraine. Also, this plan was written prior to the North Korea obtaining the Soviet ICBM technologies from Ukraine, but it names North Korea as “Operational Environment,” or, in plain English, a war zone.

Reading this remarkable document should enlighten you on predetermined nature of the US wars, engagements, lead from behind actions, and all the activities in support for “human rights.” For the Europeans to blame Muslims in an ongoing migrant crisis is like blaming cattle for running over their fields, and ignoring cowboys driving and steering their herd from behind.

According to this plan, the most crucial event of 2016 wasn’t Hilary Clinton losing the elections and Donald Trump winning. The most important event was the Indian government signing the logistics support and communication interoperability agreements that the U.S. has lobbied intensively for since 2005,  but the Indian government had been refusing to sign because it will nullify India’s independent security stance, interfere with India’s easy access to Iranian energy supplies, jeopardize Indian partner status in the Silk Road projects among other things.

Newly elected Indian government threw caution to the wind, and signed the LEMOA agreement in April 2016. LEMOA stands for Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), an India-specific version of the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA). The three agreements — Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA) are referred to as the foundational agreements which the U.S. signs with countries with which it has close military ties.

The agreement permits American aircraft and warships to access Indian military bases for refuelling, repair and other logistical purposes. This agreement gives the US military a legal foothold in Eurasia. Something they have never had before.

The following documents were posted on Twitter by Scott's Humor:


1. Uncontrolled growth of the US personnel and equipment in Afghanistan

2. Naming Pakistan a threat to the US.

3. Skirmishes between India and Pakistan, in which the US takes India’s side. This hostilities were most likely initiated by the US SOF dressed as corresponding militaries.

4. Skirmishes between India and China, in which the US takes India’s side. Most likely initiated by the US SOF.

5. Transfer to Korea ICBM technologies from Ukraine by the SBU under a full control of the C.I.A.

6. The attempts to initiate a war on North Korea. So far, the US attempts failed because Russian fleet positioned itself between the N. Korean coast and the US 7th Fleet, and the Russian battleships were ready to intercept anything flying from the US ships towards N. Korea.
However, this Russia’s strategy won’t work if war is initiated by the South Korea, or by the US special forces dressed as South Koreans or Chinese troops.

7. Ongoing war on Yemen.

8. The US has lost the war on Syria, but they plan to transfer their surviving proxy troops into Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and India.

9. Blockade of Qatar.

10. Blaming Russia for supplying arms to Taliban, to make Russia and Afghan government cooperation impossible.

11. Blaming Russia for supplying North Korea with ICBM technologies, which has been written into plan in 2012. North Korean spies were arrested in Ukraine in 2011 for trying to obtain these technologies. The arrests and convictions were made by the Ukrainian security services when Yanukovich still was a president. After the Maidan putsch, SBU raided the RD-250 rocket engines manufacturer and seized all its technological documents.

12.”Operational Environments to 2028″ names Azerbaijan as one of the future war zones.

13. As a pretext for war, Pentagon planed in 2012 to blame Pakistan for “WMD proliferation, direct threat to the Homeland, terrorist organizations, and regional tensions with India.”

14. The plan also predicts the Cold War with China and a proxy military conflict using India’s military and the US SOF and proxies acting from Afghanistan. “It is unlikely that the U.S. will face China in armed conflict over the forecast period. However, China’s military strength and technological prowess will manifest beyond its borders in other ways that will significantly impact the U.S. Army. A mercantilist version of the Cold War is a potential outcome from China’s rise.”

15. China’s cooperation with North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Burma, Venezuela, and others contributes significantly to the proliferation of anti-access capabilities that “will threaten the ability of the U.S. Army to deploy and sustain in key regions of the world.” In human language, defense cooperation between countries “threatened” the US capability to attack and destroy those countries.

16. In 2012, the US didn’t see Germany and the EU among four most powerful, economies: the US, China, India and Japan. An indication that back in 2012, there were already plans to destroy the economies of the EU and Germany.

17. The US keeps undertaking steps “to minimize perceptions of American military “occupation”.”

18. In 2012 Pentagon also planned in relations to Russia to trigger a war between Russia and China: “Russia is also facing a general decline in military capabilities and is struggling to fund and implement a sweeping set of military reforms that would slash the size of ineffective reserve forces, stockpiles of antiquated equipment, a bloated officer corps, and military bureaucracy, while simultaneously transforming the armed forces into a professional force with modern weapons, doctrine, and enhanced readiness. Russian military doctrine is still focused on the core mission of a large Asian land war, with China.”

19. In 2012 Pentagon planned that post-2020, after Putin leaves by their estimates, NATO will be able to start an occupation of Russia. “Future deterioration in Russia’s security environment could eventually (post-2020) lead to increased dialogue and mil-mil relations with Russia, potentially leading to combined training or small-scale combined operations with Russian ground forces in the Arctic, the Caucasus, or Central Asia.” In the US terms “combined operations” is something only possible under the conditions of NATO invasion.

20. The true reason why the US funded NGO continue aiding to the migrant flow in Europe and why the US interfering with the energy security of the European countries: to create conditions for military intervention in Europe. “There are no likely scenarios requiring a U.S. limited intervention over the next decade. Later in the forecast period (2025-2030) there is a possibility that population declines and continuing financial weakness will seriously erode social and economic conditions in some European states, leading to widespread collapse in civil order, failure of national governments, or humanitarian crises due to natural disasters that weakened states are unable to contend with. “

21. IRREGULAR WARFARE in and against Russia “U.S. Army involvement in irregular warfare in the Europe/Russia region during the forecast period appears unlikely.” ” One exception that could arise late in the forecast period would involve a request by a weakened Russia for NATO assistance to stabilize key oil producing regions upon which Europe depends.” As of now, the US is conducting an irregular war against Ukraine for three years, and it will go on in perpetuity.

One last thing stated in the 20-year plan is the CULTURAL PERCEPTION OF TIME. “Western cultures tend to have a view of time that is concrete and short-term, whereas Eastern cultures are more likely to focus on the long term and make decisions accordingly.”

“If one party is working from a five-year plan and its opponent is working from a twenty-year plan, the first party will find itself at a distinct disadvantage.”

“If the opponent sees time in terms of centuries, then the first has already lost. Unless the first party achieves total control through either annihilation or conquest and assimilation, its opponent will simply wait until the opportune time—be that ten, fifty, or two hundred years later—and then reassert itself.”


Wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq and Libya to continue as launch pads for the wars in Iran, China, Korean Peninsula, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Nigeria.

War on China has started using India as a proxy, and later by the US will interfere directly or via proxies in Afghanistan.

Ongoing collapse of the European economies with the US will act as a stabilizing military force against civil disobedience.

Russia’s economy will be weakened by the devastation of its trading partners in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

The end of the doctrine of nation building means that the regions devastated by the US will be maintained in a state of devastation in perpetuity to promote collapse of neighboring countries.

I wonder what’s in their 100-year plan?

Scott Humor
Director of Research and Development
Author of The enemy of the State

In case you have forgotten what happened in Ukraine, this book should refresh your memory with the incredibly precise and humorous chronicles: ANTHOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HUMOR: FROM MAIDAN TO TRUMP

Operational Environments to 2028: The Strategic Environment for Unified Land Operations
2012 white paper that sets out empire's plans to invade &/or destroy countries up to 2028

Why Does the USA Want to Start a War with Russia and/or China NOW?
Looking at recent events we can see that the US is adopting a very aggressive military stance in many places around the world:

In Syria they have just killed three Russian Officers.
The are holding war games in Poland near Russian border.
They are threatening N. Korea with complete destruction.

The connection between these events is not understood by many people because our media does not point out two simple facts:

If the US attacks N. Korea China will defend them.
Russia and China are military allies so if one is attacked both will respond.

Any of these separate conflicts in Syria, Europe or N. Korea could lead to the same thing: total nuclear war between the US and Russia/China.

Since 1971 the power of the US has rested on the fact that all countries must use the US dollar to buy and sell oil. This also means that most other international trade is bought and sold in US dollars. Why this is important for the US is explained below.

The threat the US faces now is that Venezuela and soon other countries will start to buy and sell oil in the Chinese gold-backed Yuan. If oil and other commodities are widely bought and sold in Yuan the value or worth of all US dollars around the world will drop to almost nothing.

This will mean that the US cannot afford to buy and import formerly cheap products for consumers or industry. It will also mean that the US cannot afford to pay for some 800 military bases around the world. Without military power to enforce the policies of Wall Street on the rest of the world, countries will have a freedom not experienced since 1500 when the European countries started to create colonies.

American power is based upon the U.S.’s ability to force oil-producing countries to accept payment for oil exclusively in dollars. This is sometimes referred to as the Petrodollar System.

America’s ability to enforce “dollar hegemony” in oil payments artificially strengthens the US dollar and allows American banks to loan as much money as they want without fear of inflationIt will also mean that the US cannot afford to pay for some 800 military bases around the world.

The US dollar is a fiat currency. This means that unlike currencies used for centuries in international trade it is not backed by gold. It is just pieces of paper that are valuable because the US can make countries use them thanks to its military supremacy. U.S. banks can create money out of nothing, with few consequences, due to the military-backed dollar hegemony system. And this is principally what has made America the richest country on earth.

This system has two major “nodes”:

The financial sector
The military industrial complex

Each of these nodes are interdependent and symbiotic. The military industrial complex needs MONEY to support itself. It gets this from BANKERS. The bankers, in turn, need a STRONG MILITARY to force the oil-producing countries to sell oil in dollars, thus propping up the dollar so that the bankers can create money out of nothing without worrying too much about inflation.

What makes the U.S. imperial system successful is its flywheel structure:
Being the richest nation on earth allows the U.S. to spend more money on its military…
More military spending makes it easier to enforce “dollar hegemony” in world oil markets…
Dollar hegemony allows the U.S. banking sector to print money at will without it causing inflation…
Endless money printing sustains America’s wealth and keeps it the richest nation on earth…
…and so on, ad infinitum.

The American Empire is a system. It’s not just based on military force and it’s not just based on money. It’s based on a symbiotic relationship between the two, which mutually strengthen and guarantee each other. It is a beautifully designed system. Most people think that American foreign policy is ugly and chaotic — and it seems that way on the surface. But the secret principle that underpins American power is in fact deeply elegant. Real genius went into designing this system.

If the US loses control of how oil is priced, they lose everything.
As it stands, the fact that oil sales are priced in dollars basically gives America a license to print money. But if major oil producers stop selling oil in dollars, the whole system breaks down — and the U.S. will no longer be able to print money without it causing hyperinflation.

This is the importance of the move by China to use the gold-backed Yuan instead of the US Dollar for trade in oil and other commodities. Note that Venezuela has already said it will sell its oil for Yuan, not US dollars. The only way the US can stop the use of the gold-backed Yuan is with MILITARY FORCE! This is why we have every reason to be VERY AFRAID!

This has been copied and modified from the following article:

Who Are Anglo Settlers in Australia? What Are Their Crimes?
You Anglo settlers can feel guilty about your foundational crimes after you've benefited from them.

This claim is unsatisfactory as historical analysis.
1. The term “Anglo” is useless for historical investigation. How are we to distinguish Anglo settlers from non-Anglo settlers?
2. Blame for foundational crimes is based on emotional response to the undefined “Anglos”, not rational historical investigation.
3. Descendants of indigenous Australians have experienced ongoing crimes from 1788 to the present day. “Foundational crimes” are just the beginning.
4. All settlers in and visitors to Australia benefit from foundational crimes, not just Anglo settlers.

John Macarthur
British Army Officer
Pioneer of the wool industry


In 1770 Captain James Cook landed in Botany Bay and claimed possession of the east coast of the land now known as Australia for the British Empire. The conquest of this land by agents of the British Empire began in 1788 under the doctrine of 'terra nullius'. This conquest was organised and sanctioned by the separate colonial administrations created by the British at different locations. When these colonies joined together as the Australian Federation in 1901 virtually all land was under the control of new government. This government did not recognise the remaining indigenous people living on the continent as citizens of the Federation until 1967.

Since 1788 people have come to Australia from almost every part of the world including Europe, Africa, South America, North America, the Middle East, Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, SE Asia, China, Japan and the islands of the Pacific. These people and their descendants are equally settlers, people who live and work on land conquered by the British Empire.

Trying to determine who Anglo settlers are and what makes them different is not easy because the term 'Anglo' is vague. It could refer to people who come from England where Anglo-Saxon tribes settled. It could also refer to all people from the British Isles. However people who descend from Scottish, Irish and Welsh inhabitants usually prefer not to be confused with the English who conquered them. More generally, the term 'Anglo' could simply be taken as another term for 'white', so 'Anglo' settlers would be 'white' settlers. I do no use colour words to describe people, so I will use the word 'white' as little as possible and always put it in quotes to remind readers of this.(1)

Still, however we determine the identity of Anglo settlers, why distinguish between different groups of Australian settlers in an historical analysis of Australian society? Could it be that Anglo settlers are different because Australia was conquered by Anglo invaders of the British Empire, and the crimes they committed single them out from other settlers to Australia?

The most common way to attribute blame for crimes in the past is to use the concept of collective guilt. The NAZI government of Germany invaded Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the USSR while the Japanese Imperial government invaded China. These invasions and the following wars led to the deaths of over 25 million people in the USSR, 5 million in Poland, as well as 5 million deaths among soldiers fighting for Germany. Closer to home, 3 million Japanese and 20 million Chinese died in and Asian half of WW II.(2)

Using the concept of collective guilt we can blame the Germans and the Japanese for these death and destruction of WW II. Such thinking is emotionally understandable for the victims of these crimes, but it is irrational, a kind of moral stereotype. Why? Because the blame is ascribed to ALL Germans and Japanese without regard to the actual behaviour of individuals at the time. Many Germans and Japanese had nothing to do with the WW II, and could not have stopped it even if they tried. This generalised guilt is even more baseless when applied to the descendants of Germans and Japanese. How can the children of German and Japanese soldiers be guilty of anything because of what their fathers did?

The only rational way to assign blame for the crimes in the past is to start with the leaders who ordered or sanctioned the crimes. No army can function without its soldiers following orders. No country can function without the army following orders of the leaders of the government. Guilt falls directly on the shoulders of the political leaders and the highest commanding officers in the military of any government which orders and carries out such invasions and theft. Usually these political leaders themselves are guided by a small circle of the ruling class with a clear financial interest in the war/conquest. For example some of the powerful backers of Hitler were people like Fritz Thyssen, Gustav Krupp, Friedrich Flick and the directors of IG Farben. All but Thyssen faced trials after WW II.

The history of Australia since 1788 contains many crimes. The two central crimes in Australia, as in countries like the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Israel, are murder and theft. In all of these countries many of people in the indigenous population were killed and their land stolen so it could be used by the invading settlers. There is also another crime which takes place after the murders and theft. This is the cover-up of the original crimes by ignoring them or denying they ever happened. Finally, there are the crimes committed against the descendants of indigenous Australians by successive governments. The different policies they have devised and implemented have resulted in many living in 3rd world poverty and suffering very high rates of incarceration and death in custody.


The situation in Australia is somewhat different from WW II because many of the murders were not carried out by the military. Still the members of the government in London were directly responsible and so are the separate colonial administrations in Australia. Certainly a number of individuals in the ruling class of the Empire, particularly those in the wool trade, would have encouraged political leaders to "open" land in Australia for grazing sheep. Informal groups of settlers who killed the original inhabitants or drove them off their land would have known that they would not be punished. The people who made up these colonial governments most certainly knew and approved of these actions and so did the administrators in London. Of course none of the settlers could be charged with theft because according to colonial law (terra nullius) the land belonged to nobody, so could not legally be stolen.

Today, in 2017, virtually all of the people involved in what would now be called the ethnic cleansing of Australia are dead. However these crimes are completely ignored by State and Federal governments who continue to venerate Australia's founding fathers as great men. Politicians and government officials who continue to ignore the crimes of the past in Australia are themselves guilty of a cover-up, whether they are Anglos or not. The same is true for the families of the first settlers who pretend the land their ancestors claimed was acquired without violence and bloodshed. The politicians and administrators of the Federal government, the states and territories are responsible for the policies which have allowed descendants of the indigenous Australians to live today in conditions no settler would accept voluntarily.


You Anglo settlers can feel guilty about your foundational crimes after you've benefited from them.

Since all the people who took part in organising and killing the indigenous population of Australia are dead, who are the people referred to as 'you' that are said to benefit from these past crimes? Australia is a very wealthy country, at least for the settlers from many parts of the world who are now citizens and others who find work or study here but do not become citizens. The passage quoted above fails to recognize that all settlers and visitors are benefiting from the results of the theft and murders of the past, not just the descendants of the first settlers who committed these crimes. Whoever Anglo settlers are, there is no rational reason for distinguishing them from non-Anglo settlers and visitors in any historical analysis of Australia. Furthermore, all the super-rich investors who derive their profits from banks and larger corporations based in Australia also benefit from the conquest of Australia.

Written on Ramindjeri land.


1. Over the years people seem to have forgotten one argument used to attack segregation in the US in the 1960s. A man who owned a segregated movie theatre (“Whites” Only) was shown a line of people so arranged that at one end there was a perfect example of a “white” person and at the other end a perfect example of a “black” person. He was then challenged to show where he would draw the line between those he would admit into his theatre and those he would not. The fact that any such line would be arbitrary shows that the use of the terms 'black' and 'white' as a way of distinguishing between people is itself arbitrary, relative and superficial. The same is true for other general descriptions like 'tall', 'short', 'fat', 'thin', etc.

The use of such arbitrary and catch-all terms in political discussion is even worse, as it creates artificial differences when unity is fundamental in any attempt to fight the power of the world's super-rich with their banks, corporations and obedient politicians. Where would an anti-imperialist political movement be if it only relied on “thin” people but ignored “fat” people”? So what is different about separating “white” people from “black”, “brown”, or “coloured” people in the anti-imperialist movement in Australia?


Is THIS the End of the US Petrodollar and the Financial System of the West?
I have written three articles on the US Petrodollar system.(1) It began in 1973 and is still the central feature of the US Empire. The system works like this: If anybody wants to buy crude oil, they MUST pay in US dollars. The Saudis were the first to agree but it soon became the only way to buy oil. The dollars paid to the Saudis and others is then deposited in US banks and form the basis of the world financial system. What does this mean? It means that the US occupies a special and very powerful place in the world. The way this works is explained in the Appendix a the end of the article: HOW DOES THE PETRODOLLAR SYSTEM MAKE THE US POWERFUL?

When I wrote this article at the end of 2015 I knew it could end, but I did not see how it could end without a war in which the US was destroyed by nuclear weapons. However I have just found an article which explains exactly how the Petrodollar system could end, and this may not be that far off. The article is written by Dr Jim Willie who writes for Max Keiser, Gold Eagle, Golden Jackass, Market Sanity, etc. The article is entitled "China Has the Leverage to Kill the Petrodollar".(2)

He describes the Petrodollar system as follows:

Its essence is the sale of crude oil universally in US Dollar terms. Typically the payment form is the US Treasury Bill. The OPEC crew typically sock their surplus petro dollars in US Treasury Bonds. The sale proceeds never exit the USD form. (...) The other little item in the Petro-Dollar defacto standard treaty is that the Saudis, along with the Gulf Arab neighbors, would buy US Military hardware exclusively. (...) The global currency reserve consists of the trade payments done in USD terms, together with the banking systems holding US Treasury Bonds as core assets.

The problem is that now the Saudi oil fields are almost empty. This is the reason for the Saudi war on Yemen. The Saudis want to steal their oil & gas reserves which are enormous and plentiful. They also want more cash. Since they cannot rely on oil income they have decided to sell stock in 10% of their giant oil company ARAMCO, formerly known as the Arabian-American Oil Company. Until now it has never operated as most companies in the West with publicly available shares and known shareholders. The Saudis value this asset at US$2 trillion but Western energy analysts value it at $500 billion. While the West may not want to buy what they consider an overvalued asset China might. Why?

China might over-pay for a stake in the ARAMCO company for two reasons. First, they want a toe-hold in the kingdom, in order to win other trade deals with a degree of exclusivity. They would become a favorite foreign son in the process, especially if other Western financial houses refuse to invest in the bloated over-valued petro-chemical firm. Second, the Chinese would then be in a position to demand that oil sales to China be paid in Yuan currency, in RMB terms. The ARAMCO investment, large or small, would serve as leverage to fracture the Petro-Dollar at its home base, within Saudi Arabia.

This will in turn have a very significant effect on other countries in the Middle East and the Far East:

Once the Chinese win the privilege to buy Saudi oil in RMB terms, the other Gulf Arab oil producers will match the offer of selling oil to the Chinese in their own currency, and NOT in the US Dollar. (...) The rival Gulf Arabs will not wish to lose market share to the Saudis. They will also permit the Chinese to pay in yuan. On the other side, Southeast Asian oil customers will wish to buy crude oil from the Gulf region generally in currency other than the US Dollar. They are fast dumping their US Treasury Bonds, a trend that has endured for almost two years. The Gulf Arabs will grant the Asians the right to pay for crude oil in whatever currency they wish, being very accommodative. The result will be deeply damaging. The Gulf Region will sell crude oil in non-USD terms on a widespread basis and significant scale.

The author writes that this development "is not covered well in the financial press, not even in the alternative media." You will have to look carefully to follow the negotiations between China and the Saudis. If this analysis is correct, we will have little warning before the core assets of the West, US Treasury Bonds, will drop in value to almost nothing and the US Empire will be unable to exert financial power over anyone. So will they use their military power instead? We hope not!

There are at least three ways that the Petrodollar system works for the US to give it power over all other countries. The Petrodollar system puts all the profits from the sale of crude oil in the vaults of the major US banks. With much more money to invest or loan, the US banks have a clear advantage over the investors in other countries. Further, any country which does not have enough export income to buy oil must borrow US dollars from the IMF or the major US banks. Because most countries must import oil to function, the lenders can set any conditions on these loans they wish. These countries have no choice other than accepting any conditions. This certainly helps to create the well known poverty and underdevelopment in the 3rd world. These countries are simply bled dry by the investment vultures who run these institutions.

But the Petrodollar system also gives US government a significant advantage. All other countries need to focus on their balance of payments to make sure they have enough international currency to cover the cost of imported goods. However the US can simply print more money to pay for what it wants. Why is this? Countries want to have US dollars because they need US dollars to trade with other countries. As explained above, this is the role of a reserve currency. Without a reserve currency of one kind or another, world trade, and trade in oil and gas, would simply grind to a halt. Since there is no alternative to the US dollar, and everyone must have dollars to export or import goods, there is no practical limit on the amount of US dollars they create. This may seem insane, but this is how the world economy has worked since the 1970s.

So why is the US dollar still the reserve currency for world trade? Tyler Durden explains the even though the Federal Reserve Bank in the US has inflated the value of the US dollar so it loses value against other commodities, there has been no real alternative:

“The German Deutsche mark held its value better, but the German economy and its trade was a fraction that of the US, meaning that holders of marks would find less to buy in Germany than holders of dollars would find in the US. So demand for the mark was lower than demand for the dollar. Of course, psychological factors entered the demand for dollars, too, since the US was the military protector of all the Western nations against the communist countries.”(3)

Durden is quite aware of the power the US has from the dollar being the reserve currency and the way it is being used: “We need to look at the concept of a reserve currency differently, because it is important. We need to look at it as a privilege and a responsibility and not as a weapon we can use against the rest of the world.”(4)

When the US abandoned the gold standard for the US dollar and forced OPEC to sell all oil for US dollars, they forced all countries needing oil to acquire dollars, either by trade or by loans from US banks or the IMF. The aim the Petrodollar system is to force the world to accept the US dollar as the reserve currency, thus allowing the US to occupy the uniquely powerful position this creates. All countries must balance exports and imports except the US. Furthermore, the profit from the sale of oil by OPEC ends up in US banks. We will see in the next sections how the vastly increased power of these giant banks have totally transformed both economic and political life around the world.


1. How Does the US Empire Control the World? Petrodollars Rule, Ok! (Part 1)
How Does the US Empire Control the World? Petrodollars Rule, Ok! (Part 2)
How Does the US Empire Control the World? Petrodollars Rule, Ok! (Part 3)



4. Ibid.

Part 2 - What You Don't Know About the EU Migrant Crisis – It Was Planned
It is natural to assume migrants and refugees are coming to the EU because of the NATO wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. This is certainly correct, but there are interesting reports that will show there is much more to this current mass migration.

To summarize the earlier article, Part 1 - Things You Don't Know About EU Migrant Crisis – It's Not About Refugees.(1) Most of the migrants are not refugees, many migrants and refugees are given an allowance after they are registered in the EU, and there are millions of them. The money offered seems modest to us, however as one author explained: “Compared to the places and situations where the refugees are escaping from, this temptation of free money is practically impossible to ignore.”(2)

The level of payments reported for Italy in Part 1 seem high compared other countries. Refugees in Germany receive up to 345 euro per month from the government, while in Sweden the maximum monthly allowance is 224 euro.(3) Nevertheless the cost of this massive wave of migrants is high. In 2016 the German media suggested the total amount the government will have to pay to support migrants is about US$46 billion per year.(4) In January 2017 a paper in the UK estimated the German migrant policy could cost them US$51 billion by the end of 2017.(5) This amounts to about A$65 billion, so is hardly small change.

It is well known that the EU governments are demanding Neo-Liberal austerity cuts to public services that are much the same as what we have suffered in Australia. Why would otherwise penny-pinching governments give so much money to people who are not expected to do anything in return for their payments? If anyone does not smell a rat here, they do not understand the mindset of today's Neo-Liberal politicians.

One of the thousands of tweets with "#Refugees" hashtag sent in August & September 2015.

Refugees in Turkey and many other countries are not allowed to work, so they rely on relief donations just to have food to eat. Consider this:

“An article published in the Suddeutsche Zeitung on October 14th 2014, states that Syrian refugees in Turkey are going hungry due to lack of funds for their upkeep. It states that 280 million euros more are required to feed the refugees.”(6)

This is about US$321 million. When you consider the actual cost of migrants to Germany today – which surely could have been estimated by German bureaucrats in 2014 - you must ask the question: If the Germans or the EU bureaucracy did not want millions of migrants flooding into the EU, why didn't they just pay the very modest cost of feeding them in Turkey? The cost of US$321 million for food is about 0.5% of the current cost of housing migrants in Germany this year. How could the bean-counters overlook this way of saving themselves billions of euros?

Before 2014 the EU did not encourage migrants coming through Greece or Italy. They wanted to block the overland route for undocumented people seeking entry to the EU from through Greece from Turkey. As a result the EU agency for border security helped the Greek government put up a 6.5-mile steel fence at the Evros River. They also provided Greek border police with search dogs, night-vision goggles, and helicopters. These actions produced the desired effect. 6,000 migrants were detained by Greek authorities in July 2012 but only 45 six months later.(7)

In response to the closing of the land route, migrants began making the voyage from Turkey to Greece by sea. This forced the Hellenic Coast Guard to use “pushback” tactics, repulsing boats away from the Greek coast into Turkish waters. However this practice violates international law and Amnesty International with other NGOs raised the issue in the media.

At this point we need to highlight the work of George Soros. He is a politically active billionaire. One of his causes is “open borders” and mass migration. He funded many of the NGOs active in criticizing Greece for its “pushback” tactics. However he also had a political friend in Greek politics, Alexis Tsipras, leader of the political party Syriza. In the next round of elections, Syriza won big, first in European parliament elections in May 2014, and then in Greek parliamentary elections called in January 2015. In this election Syriza was three votes short of a parliamentary majority. This allowed Tsipras, allied with a small center-right party, Independent Greeks (ANEL), to govern. (Ibid) The central issue in these elections was not migrants but the EU “bailout”. Syriza opposed this legalized robbery. (In the end they agreed to the “bailout” in spite of the fact they won the election by opposing it.) As soon as he was in office, Tsipras' government moved to completely change the Greek migrant policy.

In its first month, Syriza’s deputy immigration minister announced the government would turn refugee detention facilities into welcome centers. They also discontinud Operation Xenios Zeus, an aggressive policy of identifying and deporting illegal migrants. On April 14, the government declared all Syrian refugees would receive documents for onward travel to Europe.(8) Greece not only welcomed migrants, they gave them valid travel documents for the rest of the EU. Between April and August 2015 arrivals increased 721%, from 13,133 to 107,843. More refugees arrived in July than in all of 2014.

Austrian intelligence officials have reportedly revealed that US government agencies are paying for the transport of migrants to Europe. On August 5th, 2015 Austrian magazine Infodirekt reported:

“It has come to our knowledge that US organisations are paying for the boats taking thousands of refugees to Europe. US organisations have created a co-financing scheme which provides for a considerable portion of the transportation costs. Not every refugee from North Africa has 11,000 Euro cash. Nobody is asking, where is the money coming from?”(9)

We have seen that Soros and his political friends like Tsipras worked to encourage increase migration to the EU. We have also seen that Germany wants to encourage migrants to “replace its aging workforce” and/or drive down wages. Here we see that the US is also quietly involved as well. Why would they spend money assisting migrants to enter the EU?

Thousands of smartphones were provided to US-funded ‘activists’ during the ‘Arab Spring’. It is unsurprising, therefore, to see that smartphones are being supplied to thousands of migrants by NGOs once they arrive in Europe. Investigations in Germany showed that migrants were being supplied with smartphones by Austria’s A-1 mobile phone company. The A-1 mobile company is controlled by Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim. (10)

Former U.S. State Department official J. Michael Springmann has just published a book entitled Goodbye Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel’s Migrant Bomb. He believes that the refugees and migrants were deliberately created by the US to be used as political weapons to advance their interests. The resulting chaos is cold-blooded strategy. Springmann offers evidence that the US has assisted the process by explaining that the have sett up a Wi-Fi network for smartphones in the EU:

“CISCO’s Tactical Operations (TacOps) team supported by the volunteer Disaster Response Team (DRT) from the U.K. and Ireland, Google, and NetHope have installed Meraki-based Wi-Fi networks and device charging stations at more than 17 sites along the migration route in Southern and Central Europe."(11)

Cisco is American multinational IT company which specializes in networking. Cisco says of its Meraki access points that they “are built from the highest grade components and carefully optimized for a seamless user experience. The outcome: faster connections, greater user capacity, more coverage, and fewer support calls.” In other words, this is a state of the art system which provides “deep network insight enabling smarter network management.”(12) NetHope, a shadowy organization headquartered in CIA-friendly Fairfax County, Virginia, is tied to the US government. Springmann believes one reason the US has to support mass migration is to destabilize Europe as an economic challenger to the US.

Content-analysis of a great number of tweets that triggered the ongoing wave of migration from Turkey to Germany since August 2015 suggests that these human streams were inspired and channelled from outside of continental Europe. The following analysis is taken from the article “Who Is Twitter-Luring Refugees To Germany?”(13)

According to Vladimir Shalak from the Russian Academy of Science who developed the Internet  Content-Analysis System for Twitter (Scai4Twi), his study of over 19000 refugees-related original tweets (retweets discounted) demonstrates that the vast majority of them mention Germany and Austria as the most refugee-welcoming countries in Europe:

Counties mentioned in tweets containing "#Refugees hashtag", by percent

Importantly, 93% of all tweets dedicated to Germany contained positive references to German hospitality and its refugee policy:

• Germany Yes! Leftists spray a graffiti on a train sayin “Welcome, refugees” in Arabic
• Lovely people – video of Germans welcoming Syrian refugees to their community
• Respect! Football fans saying “Welcome Refugees” across stadiums in Germany.
• This Arabic Graffiti train is running in Dresden welcoming refugees: (ahlan wa sahlan – a warm welcome).
• ‘We love Germany!,’ cry relieved refugees at Munich railway station
• Thousands welcome refugees to Germany – Sky News Australia
• Wherever this German town is that welcomed a coach of Syrian refugees with welcome signs and flowers -thank you.

Analysis of 5704 original tweets containing "#RefugeesWelcome” hashtag and a country name lead to even larger gap between Germany and the rest of Europe:

The next step is to study the source twitter accounts where the hashtag #RefugeesWelcome + Germany originate. Next diagram shows the countries of origin of the relevant twitter accounts (where they could be idenfitied):

As you see, only 6,4% of all tweets with “#RefugeesWelcome”+Germany came from Germany itself. Almost half of them were originated from UK, USA and Australia! Looks like your remote planetmates are blushlessly inviting guests to visit your home without inquiring your opinion beforehand!

Perhaps nothing explains Soros' views on mass migration better than his own comment on the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s policy to not take migrants in Hungary: “His (Orbán's) plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”(14)

The refugee crisis has been blamed on the NATO proxy war in Syria. But who asks how people in the Middle East suddenly knew Europe would open its gates and let them in? The refugee crisis is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It has been promoted by Soros funded NGOs such as the Open Society Foundation (OSF), the US-based Migration Policy Institute and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants. All advocate the resettlement of Muslims into Europe. This is just one operation among many:

“An example of what these NGOs do was discovered in 2015 by a Sky News reporter who found “Migrant Handbooks” on the Greek island of Lesbos. The handbooks, written in Arabic, had been given to refugees before crossing the Mediterranean by a group called “Welcome to the EU” which is funded the Open Society Foundations.(14)

Soros has not only backed groups that advocate the resettlement of migrants into Europe. The “Merkel Plan” was created by the European Stability Initiative, and the chairman Gerald Knaus is a senior fellow at the Open Society Foundations.(15)

Soros has created an international network of individuals and organizations quietly working together to give the appearance of a “spontaneous” result of the NATO wars in the Middle East. But would this flood of migrants have happened if money was provided to feed and house them in Turkey and other countries? If countries in the EU did not offer allowances to the migrants who are not refugees? If Greece has not suddenly offered migrants valid travel documents? If migrants were not provided with free smartphones and state-of-the-art networking hardware? If NGOs had not handed out guide books in Arabic? If people in the US, UK and Australia had not sent tweets inviting migrants to the EU? The next question is this: What is the purpose of mass migration to the EU and who is behind it?

Many people agree with Soros' advocacy of suppoAre they afraid to speak out against the genocidal wars launched by the US and NATO? rting migrants and refugees. Those who oppose his plans are called “racists”. Consider this: Pro-migrant activists made much of the Greek “pushback” as being against international law, which it is. How many of these pro-migrant activists, including Soros himself, protested against the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya? These also contravene international law, specifically Article 2 of the United Nations Charter signed in June 1945.

It is strange to some of us that the pro-migrant activists are only interested in the welfare of the people they call migrants and refugees after they leave their war-torn countries. Why don't they care about them when they were being bombed as citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya? What is the “moral” difference between a citizen of Syria and a migrant from Syria? Why ignore a person's fate in their home country and then be outraged by their treatment when they leave? Isn't this hypocricy? If international law had been upheld and these countries not illegally attacked, would there be millions of “refugees” trying to get to the EU?









8. Ibid.


10. Ibid.





15. Ibid

Part 1 - Things You Don't Know About EU Migrant Crisis – It's Not About Refugees
People in Australia know almost nothing about the “refugee crisis” in Europe. Here citizens of the UK or France who criticise the mass migration into their countries are seen as “racists”, as if there could be no other reason to oppose it. Hopefully when readers understand what this flood of “refugees” would look like in Australia, they might question this simplistic assessment of the situation.

Europe is absorbing about a million migrants a year. The latest data reveals that in the last four years 2.3 million migrants legally applied for asylum in the EU and a further 2.2 million were in the region illegally. Of the total 685,000 have been forced back to their home countries.(1)

The misunderstanding of the migrant crisis is encouraged by the way discussions in the mass media refer to the people coming to the EU as “refugees” or “asylum seekers". In fact the United Nations itself has said that seven out of 10 people crossing the Mediterranean from Libya are economic migrants. This means that only a minority of migrants are people in need of protection like refugees and asylum-seekers.(2) The figures for migrants in Italy are even clearer. Only 2.65 % of migrants (about 10,000 people) who arrived in the last four years were granted asylum as genuine refugees(3) The term "refugee" is preferred because is naturally evokes sympathy.

To understand the impact of these migrants we need to look at what a similar situation would look like here. Italy, with a population of around 60,000,000, has had a total 410,000 arrive from the beginning of 2013 to July 2017. This means their intake of migrants now constitutes 0.68% of the population. If Australia, with a population of around 24,000,000, had the same percentage of migrants arriving in boats from South East Asia, we would have seen 163,200 arrive in that same period. Remember that Australians went into panic mode when in 2013, boat arrivals brought 25,000 people to our shores. In fact Italy had about 22,000 migrants arrive in 2013, but their numbers have doubled every year since then.

Over Easter weekend 2017 a record 8,000 migrants were rescued and brought to Italy.

It is not clear exactly how many genuine refugees have been accepted by Australia in recent years. According to one document, it seems that from 2012 through 2016 Australia actually accepted only 30,515 refugees.(4) However another document shows that in this period Australia accepted 65,068 in its humanitarian program visa grants program.(5) The government recognizes that these people require support as explained here:

Humanitarian migrants will find it much harder to find employment and may come with a burden of trauma and illness. For this reason, humanitarian migrants need much greater levels of support than other migrants. Fiscal questions are also involved, since humanitarian migrants are immediately (and rightly) eligible for government benefits like Newstart and services like Medicare.(6)

A single person on Newstart can receive $535.60 per fortnight, or about $17.000 per year. In Italy, when registered, all migrants receive a monthly income of 900 euros per month. Since 900 euro is worth A$1342, so this means that the receive about A$16000 per year. This looks like the same system used in Australia, however this sum is paid to all migrants, whether they are genuine refugees or not. This means that in 2017 the Italian government will spend 4.2 billion euros,or A$6.3 billion Australian dollars, for migrants. This is slightly less than one half the amount (A$10.4 billion) projected in the 2016-17 Federal Budget for Job Seeker income support.(7)

Just like Australia, countries like Italy in the EU live with enforced “austerity” budgets. This means that billions of euro are spent on migrants while services to the citizens of these countries are cut just as they are here. It is not hard to understand that the resentment against these migrants is not just about skin colour or religious traditions. Taxes paid by citizens of the EU is being generously given by the governments of EU countries to millions of people who have appeared from nowhere.(8) And there is another feature of these payments which would produce anger in the EU. Italian police earn 1200 euro per month. (1200 euro = A$1790) Naval volunteers who rescue the migrants receives a stipend of 900 euros a month. This means that the level of support they receive, unlike our Newstart, is not that different from what people are paid for normal jobs. Can you imagine that being tolerated in Australia? Surely this is strange in these days of Neo-Liberal austerity!

Germany is probably the strongest supporter of the massive intake of migrants to the EU. They have accepted 1.5 million in the last four years. With a total population of 89 million people, they have accepted what amounts to 1.8% of their population.

Germany wanted to boost its workforce of ageing factory workers. They are the oldest in Europe and by 2025 German factories will face over 2 million vacancies. A more cynical observer might also suspect that by bringing in more workers the large German corporations would be able to drive down wages as well. So far the Germans have not had much success finding workers. It seems that only 45 per cent of Syrian migrants in Germany have a school-leaving certificate. The employment rate among migrants stands at just 17% from over one million arrivals. In just one year, migrants not finding work jumped by 50 per cent. Further, statistics show that only 6,500 migrants are enrolled in work training programmes out of nearly 500,000 unemployed. Their experience shows that many migrants are either not educated enough or can’t speak the various languages of the EU, so they end up unemployed.(9)

In 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis, Sweden took in more migrants per capita than any other European country. Sweden accepted 352,000 migrants between 2012 and 2016. Their population was 9.8 million, so their intake amounted to 3.5% of their population.

In June 2016, Sweden toughened the rules for migrants seeking asylum, limiting who can receive permanent residency, and making it more difficult for parents to reunite with their children. Prior to that Sweden introduced border checks with its neighbours for the first time in 20 years, requiring police to monitor trains and ferries and turn back those who don’t have valid travel documents.

Recently a secret report was leaked in June 2017 called "Sweden on the brink of legal crisis". The report has revealed that the number of lawless areas (commonly referred to as, “no-go zones”) in Sweden have now reached 61, rising from 55 in just one year. This increase includes, not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas. These are areas women and even police themselves can no longer freely walk around.(10)

The situation is critical because it is said the migrants do not come to assimilate into Western Culture, but to change the West to their world. Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, warned that Swedish police forces can no longer uphold the law. The migrants are so disrespectful that if the free money is cut off, Sweden can quickly find itself in the midst of total chaos. When the police come out and ask for help, you know something is seriously wrong.(11)

The exact meaning of this sign is ambiguous without a full understanding of the social context. Since many Muslims follow the principles of Shariah law, it could be relatively harmless. Do the posters of the sign intend to enforce the "law"? How exactly? Is it for Muslims and non-Muslims alike?

Austria was originally a supporter of the EU migration, but they have now completely changed their policy. Austria has moved four armoured vehicles to the Italian border and has 750 soldiers primed to stop migrants from crossing into the country. Austria is also likely to set up controls at the busy Alpine Brenner Pass in the south of the country 'very soon' to tackle the migrant influx. The planned controls will include the key trade pass, a move that Italy warned last year would break EU rules on free movement.(12)

In Poland, Prime Minister Beata Szydło said her country would not be blackmailed by European Union officials. She considered that the forced migration policy of the EU is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions.  Poland has a quota of 6,182 migrants, not one of whom has been admitted.

In the Czech Republic, Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said that given the deteriorating security situation in Europe and the non-functioning of the quota system, the Czech government will not participate in it. The Czech Republic has a quota of 2,691 migrants, of whom only 12 have been taken. In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico said that mass migration and forced multiculturalism would change the essence of his country. Fico added that 95% of so-called refugees were actually economic migrants.

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has warned of the "explosive consequences" of a culture clash between Europe and migrants from the Muslim world. Hungary has a quota of 1,294, none of whom have been admitted.

The European Union has initiated legal action against the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for failing to comply with a controversial order to take in thousands of migrants. Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said that agreeing to European Union quotas would "certainly be worse" than any punishment meted out by Brussels.(13)

4,808 migrants, 2.65% of those who arrived in Italy in 2016, were granted asylum as genuine refugees. This leads some politicians to say that 95% of so-called refugees were actually economic migrants. 90,334 of the migrants in 2016 did not request asylum but disappeared into the black market economy. Of the 91,902 who applied for asylum, 54,252 had their requests rejected unconditionally. 18,979 were given 'humanitarian protection' status. 12,873 were given 'subsidiary protection'.(14)

2013 Italy had 22,118 migrants.
2014 Italy had 66,066 migrants.
2015 Italy had 103,792 migrants.
2016 Italy had 176,554 migrants. (UNHCR records 181,436 migrants into Italy in 2016.)
By June 2017 Italy had over 60,000 migrants, 48% more than the same period in 2016, when there were 40,000.
By July Italy had over 80,000 migrants.
Total migrants to Italy has been 410,503 in four and half years. (2013- july 2017)

When registered migrants receive a monthly income of 900 euros per month. (900 euro = A$1342)
900 euros go to the Italians who house the refugees.
600 euros are needed to cover insurance costs. (600 euro = A$895)
Every immigrant costs to Italy 2,400 euros a month. (2400 euro = A$3580)
Italian police earn 1200 euro per month. (1200 euro = A$1790)
Naval volunteers who rescue the migrants receives a stipend of 900 euros a month.

In 2015 the Italian government spent 2.6 billion euros for migrants.
In 2016 the Italian government spent 3.3 billion euros for migrants.
In 2017 the Italian government will spend 1.9 billion euros for pensions.
In 2017 the Italian government will spend 4.2 billion euros for migrants.

There is an investigation into the possibility that subjects linked to ISIS act as logistical support to migration flows".
There are now Italian judges investigating the connection between the migrants' smugglers in North Africa and the Italian NGOs rescuing them in the Mediterranean. It seems people-smugglers bring the migrants to the NGOs' ships, which then reach Italian seaports.
There is also a legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia's economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.(15)








7. p. 5-12)

8. Povera Italia: un immigrato costa il doppio di un agente



11. Ibid.





Hard to Post the Butchery in Syria Supported by Our Government, But We Should Know...
Knowing the truth is a great burden. Anyone of conscience would want to let people know what is going on in their name. It is so hard to see images of unbelievable butchery and pass this vileness out into the world of cyberspace. The only motivation is to try to stop this barbarity. If anyone feels they can face the reality of what the US/NATO backed 'Moderate' head chopping SCUM are doing for the US Empire, Military Industrial Complex, Banks and Corporations, you can look at the rest of this post.

This is the reality of Neoliberalism Globalism, the system we all live under at this present time. Human life is of no account for the people behind the scenes who are enabling these butchers to commit the most heinous crimes upon humanity imaginable. There is PROFIT in DEATH and DESTRUCTION. Our system is a DEATH CULT. Some may find this an extreme statement but if you do some research you will come to the same conclusion. I say this with a heavy heart.

This is what US does to countries that do not possess Nuclear Weapons.

GetUp! and Soros – Soros Behind Facebook Censorship and Election Manipulation
Many people on both sides of politics in Australia see GetUp! as an organization which which is very close to the Australian Labor Party and the Greens on many issues. Few realize that GetUp! is funded by billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. While people have a clear idea of what GetUp! does in Australia, they do not understand the full story behind George Soros and his Foundations. This is the second of a series of articles on what Georce Soros has been doing since the Open Society Institute (now Foundation) was created in the United States in 1993. A central theme will be that while GetUp! is well-known for environmental and human rights campaigns in Australia, the activities of Soros and his many organizations in other countries don't look quite so harmless.

After reading this article you should ask yourself: Is George Soros really a supporter of democracy as most people understand it? Why would the outspoken advocate of an “open society” spend his money trying the make sure elections in the EU and elsewhere advance his personal agendas like unrestricted immigration? He seems to be afraid that without his money otherwise apparently democratic elections will not result in the “correct” outcomes. Does he support “democratic” elections only if he likes the winners?

Much has been made of the alleged influence of Russia on last year's US election. However little notice has been given to the admitted influence of Facebook on the recent French election. Early in February this year Facebook in France said they would rely on users to flag fake news on its network. The articles would then be "fact-checked" by its partner organizations. Any news report deemed to be fake by two of its partners would then be tagged with an icon to show that the content is "contested". The “fact-checkers” include French news organizations such as Agence France-Presse (AFP), news channel BFM TV, and newspapers L'Express and Le Monde. Their aim is to minimize the risk that “false news” appeared on its platform.(1) Facebook will only allow posts that are not “contested”. These are the posts that do not challenge or disagree with what mainstream French media presents.

However this was only the beginning. Just 10 days before the first round of the hotly contested presidential election in April, Facebook announced that it had suspended 30,000 accounts in France. They said their goal was to stop the spread of fake news, misinformation and spam. Its priority was to remove suspect accounts with high volumes of posting activity and the biggest audiences.(2) The official story was that they were fighting against a Russian campaign in Europe “to promote right-wing, nationalist parties and undermine the European Union.”

Marine Le Pene, target of Facebook censorship before recent French election

Other observers in France might tell you that the Russians had nothing to do with the support for Le Pen and her criticism of the tsunami of so-called “refugees”. Uncontrolled immigration is very unpopular across the EU. Both governments and media are working overtime to put a lid on the protests. Whatever the Russians were doing in France, it is clear that by their own admission Facebook itself influenced the French election by censoring sites which expressed opposition to the unpopular EU immigration policy. Such actions are not confined to France. Earlier this year Facebook disabled the ZeroHedge Facebook account, after they posted a widely circulated and harmless photo of Chuck Schumer with Vlad Putin.(3)

The actions Facebook took in France this year were planned and announced on 16 December 2016.

“Facebook has just announced they’re going to implement what may be the most oppressive censorship regime out of every major social media site.
Failed liberal bloggers with a disastrous track record from Snopes, along with other partisan 'fact-checkers' like Politifact, are going to be deciding what is and is not 'fake news.'
“Not only will they punish such sites by lowering their reach, but they’ll insert their own 'fact-checking' articles to provide a counter narrative. Giant pop-up warnings will also be inserted to scare people from sharing articles they’ve deemed 'fake.'”(4)

After their original proposal met serious public concern, Facebook said they would instead use third-party fact-checkers from the “trusted” Poynter Institute. So who funds the Poynter Institute? It is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Google, the Craig Newmark Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Pierre Omidyar Network among others. The political orientation of these people is also no mystery.

“A group of selfless and unbiased philanthropists have stepped forward to offer millions of dollars to assist these ‘fact-checkers’ in their efforts to ferret out and disappear anything they determine to be ‘fake news.’ It seems rather curious, however, that these donors are all in fact in one way or other completely beholden to Hillary Clinton and the left-interventionists of the Democratic Party.”(5)

By using the Poynter Institute, funded by Soros, Gates, and others, Zuckerberg is committing to liberal bias in Facebook newsfeeds and foregoing the last shreds of open idea-sharing the platform originally claimed to embrace.

Last year hackers gained access to Soros' Open Society Foundation and have released many documents from the OSF since then. One document is entitled: “Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE); List of European Election Projects 2014”.(6) One of the “projects” listed in this document is the EUobserver ASBL fund. Its description reads as follows:

“This project uses professional news reporting to foster debate on how open society values are under stress in the run up to the European elections. Topics include the rise of hate speech by Europe’s far right, the increased use of intolerant rhetoric and policies by mainstream politicians, as well as the rise in hate crime on the streets of Europe. EUobserver recruited experienced, local journalists to visit campaign events, conduct interviews and solicit high-level op-eds in 16 countries. By 'going local', EUobserver was able to point out worrying cross-border trends, rather than merely report on isolated incidents. They published a total of 128 articles in the period from February to May 2014.”(7)

According to the document the project ran from 01/01/14 to 05/31/14 and cost US$130,992. The journalist Phil Butler explained in simple terms what this program did:

“Soros funded the EUobserver plan with $130,922 dollars and bought 128 influential articles Europeans read across the EU. That’s roughly $1000 dollars per article for op-ed pieces, which is enough to sway the opinions of 90% of the European journalist I know of. The document outlining that plan goes so far as to label the areas of focus these articles were intended for, and included; Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Sweden, Netherlands, Poland, and the UK. The EUobserver buyout of media was even extended by a further 32 articles at about $1000 dollars each to more acutely focus just before the elections.”(8)
GetUp! and Soros – Soros Behind Facebook Censorship and Election Manipulation
This project has the same purpose as the Facebook censorship carried out before the French elections in 2017: to combat the growing resentment and anger against uncontrolled immigration, one of Soros' important projects for the EU. This will be examined in a later article.

Copy of the original entry for the EUobserver ASBL fund.

We have added up the money spent by Soros during the 2014 EU election listed in the document discussed above. The total is around $5,165,800. For him this is an "investment" in a political outcome from which he hopes to profit. This is what philanthropy has come to in our world!






5. 2/19/george-soros-and-bill-gates-exposed-as-the-force-behind-facebooks-new-fake-news-detector/


7. Ibid.


GetUp! and Soros - the Odd Couple
Many people on both sides of politics in Australia see GetUp! as an organization which which is very close to the Australian Labor Party and the Greens on many issues. Few realize that GetUp! is funded by billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. While people have a clear idea of what GetUp! does in Australia, they do not understand the full story behind George Soros and his Foundations. This is the first of a series of articles on what Georce Soros has been doing since the Open Society Institute (now Foundation) was created in the United States in 1993. A central theme will be that while GetUp! is well-known for environmental and human rights campaigns in Australia, the activities of Soros and his many organizations in other countries don't look quite so harmless.

Perhaps the best place to start is with George Soros himself. He was born in Hungary in 1930 but is now also a citizen of the US. He is considered by some to be one of the most successful investors in the world. An assessment in May 2017 found that Soros has a net worth of $25.2 billion, making him one of the 30 richest people in the world.(1)

He is usually seen as a progressive philanthropist, but this perception is very much at odds with what he has done during his life. While he is probably not himself a Nazi, events in his life show that he has no problems working with Nazi's or Neo-Nazis to get what he wants.

George Soros was born into a non-observant Jewish family, and in 1936 Soros' family changed their name from the German-Jewish Schwartz to Soros to protect themselves in increasingly antisemitic Hungary.(2) His family purchased documents to say that they were Christians, thereby allowing them to survive the war. At age 14 Soros posed as the Christian godson of an official of the collaborationist Hungarian government's Ministry of Agriculture.

When Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.(3) Some have thought this claim was just an anti-Soros slander, but in a 1998 interview with CBS’ Steve Kroft he admitted that he participated in the confiscation of Jewish property during the Nazi occupation of Hungary. When asked if he felt any guilt about this he replied:

"’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”(4)

How many supporters of progressive causes do you know with an attitude like that? There is also a video clip of Soros in which he talks about his time working for the Nazis during German occupation in WWII. He explains this experience as the "happiest time" in his life.(5)

Some 70% of Hungary's Jews, about 500,000 people, were killed by the Nazi's during the war.

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Soros was asked:

“First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?”

Soros responded:

“Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.”(6)

So what were those events? Anti-government allies began in central Kiev in November 2013 after the democratically elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, postponed the signing of an association agreement with the European Union. Protests continued until February 2014. On the 18th of February around 20,000 protesters marched toward the national parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, in what was called a “peace offensive.” However the protest became violent as police were confronted by demonstrators wearing black masks, helmets, some also equipped with bulletproof vests. They pelted riot police with rocks and Molotov cocktails, as well as shooting fireworks. The next day huge fire began at the House of Labor Unions, cloaking Maidan - Kiev’s Independence Square - with thick black smoke. A truce was negotiated but the far-right wing of the Ukrainian opposition - Pravy Sector or Right Sector - refused to observe the truce.

The next day rioters ignored the truce and started an early morning revolt against the authorities. Gunfire broke out again on the square and perhaps 100 people died in the fighting. On Friday a rump session of Parliament ordered the military and security forces out of Kiev and a peace deal was negotiated by the EU. However by the evening however radical rioters announced that truce or no truce, they were still willing to use force to make the president step down immediately. On Saturday the elected president Yanukovich fled the capital in fear of his life and shortly after he was ousted from power.(7)

Not ashamed of the Swastika in the Ukraine.

Those who doubt the existence of Neo-Nazis in the Ukraine might be surprised by the following report of events in Lviv, a popular tourist attraction in the Ukraine before the 2014 coup:

“On April 28, 2011, the 68th anniversary of the formation of a Ukrainian Waffen-SS division, hundreds of people marched through Lviv, with support from city council members, chanting slogans like 'One race, one nation, one Fatherland!'
“Two months later, residents celebrated the 70th anniversary of the German invasion 'as a popular festival, where parents with small children waived flags to re-enactors in SS uniforms,' according to the noted Swedish-American historian Per Anders Rudling.
“Later that year, extreme right-wing deputies at a nearby town in the Lviv district 'renamed a street from the Soviet-era name Peace Street to instead carry the name of the Nachtigall [Nightingale] Battalion, a Ukrainian nationalist formation involved in the mass murder of Jews in 1941, arguing that ‘Peace’ is a holdover from Soviet stereotypes.”(8)

When the new coalition government was established in 2014 it consisted of Yatsenuyk’s Fatherland Party, Svoboda and Right Sector. Members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs. Andriy Parubiy, the co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU). Andriy Parubiy together with party leader Oleh Tyahnybok is a follower of Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera, who collaborated in the mass murderer of Jews and Poles during World War II.(9)

Thirty members of the Israeli Knesset condemned the Svoboda party in a signed letter addressed to the President of the European Parliament. In the letter the Israeli politicians accused Svoboda of "openly glorifying Nazi murder" and "Nazi war criminals". In May 2013 the World Jewish Congress labelled the party as "neo-Nazi" and called for European governments to ban them.(10)

It has been reported that many of the participants in Kiev’s ‘EuroMaidan’ demonstrations were members of Soros-funded non-government organizations (NGOs) and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given "more than any other donor organization" to "democratic transformation" of Ukraine.(11) This statement of his achievement is a lie. The president, Yanukovich, who was removed by Soros' friends, was himself democratically elected. Further the government of president Poroshenko was established by a coup carried out by Neo-Nazi gangs as described above. The new government was recognized by the US and the EU anyway and has been treated as the legitimate government since then.

Photo of US Senator McCain in the Ukraine. On his right is Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.(12)

Photo of Petro Poroshenko, current President of Ukraine, in office since 2014.

The same account of Soros' role in the 2014 coup in the Ukraine can be found in an article by ZeroHedge. He

“was responsible for establishing a foundation in the Ukraine that ultimately led to the overthrow of the country’s elected leader and the installation of a junta handpicked by the US State Department, at the time headed by none other than Hillary Clinton.”(13)

Thanks to a recent leaks, there is evidence of the power Soros had over Ukraine immediately following the 2014 coup. In a document titled, “Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt”, he can be seen advising the US Ambassador on a number of issues. He was even asked to criticize US policy on the Ukraine. Soros answer is recorded as follows:

He will “send Ambassador Pyatt copies of correspondences he previously sent to others and his article in NY Review of Books. Obama has been too soft on Putin, and there is a need to impost potent smart sanctions. He noted the need for a division of labor between the US and the EU with the US playing the bad cop role. The USG should impose sanctions on Russia for 90 days or until the Russian government recognizes the results of the presidential elections. He noted that he is most concerned about transitional justice.”(14)

Soros was completely against a federated structure which would have made it possible to accommodate the mainly Russian speaking regions in the east into what Soros called the new Ukraine. This policy led quickly to the new government's military action which grew into the conflict that has gone on for years between the illegal Ukrainian government and the people in the Donbass.

What else did Soros get out of the Ukraine? He got the US Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew to advise the puppet government of Ukraine to privatize the state-owned energy monopoly Naftogaz, which he subsequently bought. Here his pattern was to shape and encourage regime change and then buy important assets at rock bottom prices.

Shows how symbol of the Azov Battalion is based on two famous Nazi designs.



2. Ibid.














Log in

No account? Create an account