Tags: united states

Is There a Replay of the Euromaidan Psy-op in Ukraine Before a Coup in USA?

Guest Post by Denis Churilov:
(https://www.facebook.com/chdv1991/posts/10214788380921013)

The anti-Russian “indictment” hysteria that we currently observe in the United States has so many similarities with the Euromaidan psy-ops that was waged by the “glocal” media against people in Ukraine in 2013-2014.



(1) In both cases, there has been a strong appeal to identity. During Euromaindan, they were agitating people by tackling into their national identity, with the concepts of sovereignty (“nezalezhnost’”) being peddled endlessly back then. In present case, with American liberals, there’s a constant emotional appeal to “democratic values”: “We, as a democratic nation, should build ties with other democracies, not tyrannies”. or “Our democracy came under attack!”, etc.

(2) In both cases, there’s a definite boogeyman. During Euromaidan, it was “evil tyrant” Yanukovich and his supposed Russian bosses. In present day US, it is “traitor” Trump and his supposed Russian curators.

(3) In both cases, people have been agitated to hysteria with a constant stream of baseless, emotionally charged propaganda and fear-mongering, when you get one “shocking news” after another, so there’s less time to stop and process all the information consciously and logically. Eventually, it all forms a multi-level narrative, leading to a toxic mixture of confirmation bias, the bandwagon effect, and what social psychologists would call availability cascade (or availability heuristics), when people are more likely to believe or remember something if it falls in line with what they have been hearing lately.

(4) In this way, even if something appears too bizarre to be true, people are more likely to believe it anyway because they have been hearing so many similar stories in recent past, regardless of whether those stories actually turned out to be true to begin with. But, hey, if everyone says it’s true, then it must be true, right?. So, after a certain period, people get completely brainwashed into a parallel reality. And if emotional agitation is intense enough, people fall into “hysteria” mode, loosing their capacity for logical reasoning, at least, when it comes to this particular subject. From then on, people become easier to manipulate, and it only gets worse.

(5) So, in both cases, we’ve seen masses of people being brainwashed with heavily charged mantras, emotionally loaded slogans and codewords in a coordinated manner. For example, try to see how many times the US mainstream media said that Trump “threw intelligence agencies under the bus”. This appeals to their values and identities, forming an image of an external threat, fear-mongering to the extent that people actually began to experience sleep issues, panic attacks, and other unpleasant symptoms.

(6) Interestingly, in both cases, the psy-ops/information campaign was run in the interest of people who appear close to the American neoconservatives
such as Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan. Remember the role they played in the Euromaidan regime change? Coincidentally, people from those circles are strongly pro-NATO, they hate Russia as a sovereign geopolitical player and they are less than comfortable with Trump and the promises he made during his election campaign in regards to foreign policy.

Could it be that some power groups in Washington D.C. are currently dusting off the schemes that were perfected during the Arab Spring and Euromaidan years ago and applying them on the US soil?

Just a speculation, though.

What is Happening in the US Empire Today: The US has Three Choices

This article is a reprint of comments by B.F. at Saker blog*:

NATO AND THE EU ARE USELESS TO THE US AND HAS BEEN DESTROYED
NATO was created to keep the US in Europe and Germany under control, preventing it forming an economic alliance with Russia. The EU is the civilian component of NATO, based on the US Federation. It’s job is to curtail the sovereign status of European nations and place them under the control of private bankers. Both the US and EU have private central banks. Both NATO and the EU started moving towards the East after the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1989. The final aim was the destabilization and break up of Russia, after which NATO would move in followed by Western corporations. It did not happen.

NATO’s sole aim today (from the US point of view) is to keep Western Europe out of the Russian-Chinese economic alliance and prevent European nations from joining eastern organizations like the Eurasian Economic Union, which Wall Street wants to destroy. NATO is becoming a financial burden. Trump has the audacity to demand that EU states spend 4 % of their GDP on NATO, ie. to finance Wall Street’s further occupation of Europe. It will never happen.

And the EU ? It’s on the road to break up. It will either have to be reformed, returning to EU member states their full sovereign rights, or else dissolved.



EVEN IF TRUMP IS NOT REMOVED BY A COUP, HE CANNOT DO MUCH THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM BUSH AND OBAMA
Trump and Wall Street have now found themselves into a situation of not fully knowing what to do. The US has the largest foreign and domestic debt in the world, while the dollar is printed backed by nothing. The US cannot go on financing NATO, nor does Europe wish to make any more contributions. Both NATO and the EU are looking into dissolution. The US is seeing it’s foreign policy being defeated in Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan. The US Naval expedition against North Korea achieved nothing, except bring North and South Korea closer to each other.

On the other hand Trump and Wall Street are looking at the rise of the East, Russia and China and the organizations they have created: The Shanghai Cooperation Zone, the Eurasian Economic Union, the BRICS and the Silk Road. Worse for Wall Street, Europe is looking towards the East too...

If Trump wants isolationism, he can always get it. However, this cannot be a false isolationism which the US practiced in it’s history, saying one thing and doing something else. Trump will soon be two years in office. I fail to see what he has achieved, except continue what Bush and Obama did before him. He will try to uphold Wall Streets globalist, imperial agenda. He will fail. I have my doubts if he can even rebuild Americas infrastructure, bearing in mind it’s cracking up, with 70.000 factories being closed down.


THE COUNTRIES IN THE EU WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE DEALS WITH RUSSIA

Finally, all Putin needs to do is continue what he has been doing so far, namely continue working with China and wait for Europe to come to him, as it will. The US has the simple choice of either dissolving it’s globalist empire or seeing itself financially implode, as it will if it continues on the present path. 

NOTE: The author B.F. only lists TWO alternatives for the US. There is of course a third alternative: WAR WITH CHINA.

THREE CHOICES FOR THE USA:
1) Dissolve it’s globalist empire.
2) See itself financially implode.
3) Attack China.



*http://thesaker.is/trumps-geopolitical-cruise/

As Interest Rates Rise, the Debt Bubble is in Trouble

The following is an excerpt from Graham Summers' weekly investment service, Private Wealth Advisory. Interest rates are creeping up after years of being very low. Low interest rates have kept the debt bubble going but NOW with interest rates on the rise the DEBT BUBBLE IS IN TROUBLE. This article gives the origin of the problem and the reasons the end of the debt bubble is in sight.

July 12, 2018

The Everything Bubble Hits a New Record... Right As Bonds Begin to Drop

The Everything Bubble hit a new record in 1Q18… with total global Debt to GDP exceeding 318%. All told, the world now has some $247 TRILLION in debt. As I explain in my bestselling book The Everything Bubble: The Endgame For Central Bank Policy, when the US abandoned the Gold Standard completely in 1971, it opened the door to a massive debt expansion.

Why? Because from that point onwards, the US would be paying its debt solely in US dollars… dollars that the Fed could print at any time. What followed was truly parabolic debt growth, with total US debt growing exponentially relative to its GDP. By the way, this chart is denominated in TRILLIONS of US Dollars.



By the time the mid-90s rolled around, the US financial system was so saturated with debt the Federal Reserve opted to start intentionally creating asset bubbles to stop debt deflation. In the late ‘90s it was the Tech Bubble. When that burst, the Fed opted to created a bubble in Housing… a more senior asset class. As a result, in the mid-00s we had the Housing Bubble.

When that bubble burst, the Fed opted to create a bubble in US Treasuries… the MOST senior asset class in the entire system, representing the risk-free rate of return against which all risk is valued. Put another way, the Fed opted to create a bubble in the bedrock of the financial system. By doing this, literally EVERYTHING went into bubble-mode, hence my coining the term The Everything Bubble back in 2014.

Which brings us to today. Yields on Treasuries have broken their long-term 20-year trendline.



This is a MAJOR problem. The entire debt bubble requires interest rates to remain LOW in order for it to be maintained. If bond yields continue to rise, bond prices will collapse. If bond prices collapse, the Everything Bubble bursts.
The Fed now has a choice… continue to support stocks or defend bonds… and unfortunately for stock investors, it’s going to have to choose bonds.

Put another way, I believe there is a significant chance the Fed will let the stock market collapse in order to drive capital BACK into the bond market to force bond yields down. Yes, the Fed has screwed up with monetary policy. And it is doing so intentionally to try to sustain the Debt Bubble. Currently the downside target for the collapse is in the 2,300-2,450 range.

MUST READ: Summary of US Military Plans for Next 20 years

Guest Post by Scott Humor
(http://thesaker.is/pentagon-makes-a-20-year-plan-while-washington-outsources-its-color-revolution/)

“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.”


INTRODUCTION
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.

US ARMY PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
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.

NEW PLANS FOR INDIA - KEY US ALLY
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.

UNIQUE INSIGHT INTO INDIA TODAY
The following documents were posted on Twitter by Scott's Humor:






SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT US ACTIVITY AND PLANS

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.


THE ADVANTAGE OF THE US 20 YEAR PLAN
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.”


ACCORDING TO THIS PLAN BY 2018 WE SHOULD EXPECT:

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


US SOURCE DOCUMENT
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
http://www.arcic.army.mil/app_Documents/TRADOC_Paper_Operational-Environments-to-2028-Strategic-Environment-for-Unified-Land-Operations_AUG2012.pdf



Why Does the USA Want to Start a War with Russia and/or China NOW?

TENSIONS BETWEEN US AND RUSSIA/CHINA ARE VERY HIGH
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.



WHY WOULD THE US WANT A WAR WITH RUSSIA/CHINA NOW?
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.


THE END OF THE US DOLLAR FOR OIL - PETRODOLLAR - IS THE END OF US DOMINATION OF THE WORLD
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.


HOW THE US HAS CONTROLLED THE WORLD SINCE 1971
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.


THE US EMPIRE IS A SYSTEM
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.


THE VULNERABILITY OF THE 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:
http://insurgentmedia.tv/new-world-order-part-ii-war-the-petrodollar-and-u-s-imperial-grand-strategy/

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.

































Globalization is Control of Your Country by Multinational Corporations and Banks

INTRODUCTION
This article does not pretend to be an unbiased, “objective” discussion of globalization like many you will encounter. It is written to highlight the many serious consequences of the policies that make up globalization and help you understand the controversy surrounding it. Globalization is very dangerous for many people the world over, including those of us in the West. It causes the underdevelopment and poverty we see in much of the world, and lies behind policies like “austerity” and privatization now plaguing the West. We need to understand what it is and work for better alternatives in the future.(1)



GLOBALIZATION: NEW NAME FOR AN OLD GAME: FOREIGN CONTROL

Most countries in the world today are being changed by what we call globalization. It is a complex process which took off after the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), not long after Australia was incorporated into the British Empire. The official, polite definition of globalization is the “international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.”(2) In the 19th century the visible instruments of globalization were the telegraph and the steamship. These have now been replaced by the internet and container ships.

The simplest way to understand the nature of globalization is to see it as control exercised over a country by another country or group of countries. Conquest was the earliest form of control exercized by western countries like Portugal, Spain, France, England etc. over their colonies. Such control was also established by wars. England fought several wars with China, called the Opium Wars, in order to force the Chinese Emperor to allow merchants from England and the United States to sell opium in China. China lost and as a result opium addiction plagued the Chinese until the Communist government ended it in 1949

Such control is more subtle when it takes the form of trade agreements like the TPP. In this case the leaders of individual countries seem to agree voluntarily to a range of changes to their policies and laws which give special privileges to foreign investors. Another difference between the older methods of colonial control and the push for globalization is that its supporters are the people who own and control the largest multinationals and banks. The US is the prime mover pushing globalization, but it has supporters in many countries, mostly by the bankers and important business leaders in those countries. The corporations and banks even push the globalization agenda on the US itself, even though it is bad news for most citizens of the US.


GLOBALIZATION IN PRACTICE
Since 1971,the economic policies of the international investors codified by the International Monetary Fund(IMF), called the “Washington Consensus”, has been compulsory policy for any politician in the West who hopes to enter the parliaments of our democratic system. Most of these policies will be recognized as the kinds of demands made by politicians in all Western countries today. In fact no politicians in any Western country can resist promoting these policies because the banks and the representatives of the US Empire like the IMF enforces them.

Most of the people in the West do not understand where these policies come from, and why they are being imposed on them. The best the politicians can say is that they are good for “the economy”, meaning good for the profits of the giant multinationals. In Australia today the Liberal-National Party government is being unusually open when they explain that cuts to social services are necessary to provide billions of dollars in tax cuts for the largest corporations, which pay relatively little tax anyway. If you complain you are accused of “class war”. But what is it when these corporations wants more for themselves and less for us? This is just class warfare by the super-rich. Here are some of the policies foreign investors and banks expect to see their political puppets apply in each country:

1. Cut spending on social services, pensions, “welfare”, education and health.
2. Introduce "user fees" for social services (user pays) or privatize them.
3. Demand higher taxes on ordinary people.
4. Cut government “bureaucracy” and reduce services.
5. Use private capital for the development of infrastructure like roads, airports rather than fund with tax revenue.
6. Remove trade and investment rules and deregulate financial intuitions.
7. Promote export-orientated and resource extraction industries instead of industries which primarily serve domestic markets.
8. Provide tax breaks and subsidies to export industries.
9. Remove tariffs and allow failing firms to go bankrupt.
10. Privatize national assets like electricity, water, transport, telecommunications.
11. Freeze or reduce wages.(3)


Most ordinary people will wonder why politicians cut funding for education and health or provide tax breaks for large corporations while increasing the tax burden on ordinary citizens. When they see that the results of privatizing water or electricity means that the service gets worse and the costs increase, they ask why this was a priority for all political parties. The answer is that foreign investors do not live in the countries they invest in. They simply don't care about what happens to the people in these countries. What these policies have in common is that if they are adopted they will increase the profitability of investments in that country. Why local politicians share this lack of interest in the consequences of these policies needs to be explained in more detail.


BANKS: THE QUIET ENFORCER OF GLOBALIZATION
There are many ways government can be forced to adopt these policies by the banks. If a country or state has a loan, this loan has a credit rating set by the three main agencies: Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch. Each has a somewhat different system, but loans with the highest ratings are called “prime” or ‘high grade” loans, and the loans with the lowest ratings are described as“highly speculative” or “default imminent”. However recent events have shown that these ratings agencies are actually owned by the big banks themselves, and the agencies are not immune from pressure from the US government. This means that the ratings for any loan can be based on many factors besides the financial health of the debtor.

For example, before the 2008 crash these ratings agencies were giving high ratings for what turned out to be “sub-prime” investments based on home mortgages for people who were known to be unable to pay them. Such investments should have been rated as “substantial risks” but then who would buy them? In the same way, a government that did not do what investors want can have the ratings of their loans downgraded, which means that the interest the government needs to pay will increase. There is no review or appeal against these judgements, as investors take them to be gospel truth. All politicians know this. If they do what the banks don't like, their country will be penalized. This also explains why governments tend to borrow from these banks. For them, it is a safe investment. More loans means more profits for the banks.


WHO BENEFITS FROM GLOBALIZATION?
We are told the same thing about globalization by business leaders, politicians, economists and the media: The changes demanded by globalization are normal. While all public discussion of globalization insists it is the only way for the future, the process itself is driven by a small number of very powerful people known as the super-rich or the 1%. What do the 1% have to do with globalization? It is their plan for the economic development for the whole world. Their investments in different countries will be more profitable if all countries coordinate their economic development according to the plans devised by the global elite. Each country has been assessed on what it can contribute to a new system of global manufacturing and international trade.

If you think it is absurd to believe a few super-rich individuals have planned and implemented the economic and political policies of most countries in the world, just read this quote from the Autobiography of David Rockefeller (1915 – 2017) one of the richest men in the world:



He not only admits that he has worked to create a “more integrated political and economic structure”, he is proud of it. Rockefeller himself worked tirelessly to implement the “international integration” that is overwhelming us.


THE ECONOMIC AGENDA OF GLOBALIZATION
People like to think of the 1% as the “idle rich”, but this is a serious mistake. The 1% have been busy for decades working out how to be come richer at our expense. After World War II, the victors mapped out the investment strategy for the Free World in the face of the devastation created by the war. The policy of investors from the West at the time was

“…to encourage regimes to develop and industrial base and a prosperous middle class that could sustain stable political authority without creating an opening for leftist movements. (…) The prevailing orthodoxy was that national states could intervene extensively in economic affairs to support and develop productive industry.”(4)
“US investors wanted countries to replace imported goods by goods made in individual countries, which meant that each country would increase their domestic industries.”(5)

The history of Australia after World War II provides an excellent example of this policy. Many companies, often connected to similar companies overseas began to produce cars, televisions, refrigerators and all manner of consumer items. However beginning as early as the 1970's wealthy international investors decided they and their companies could make more money with a very different global system.

What they had created after WW II was a system in which many countries had their own industries serving the local market. The super-rich came to see this system as inefficient. One larger facility was more profitable - to them - than a number of smaller ones. They also realized that wage rates in the US and other countries of the West were becoming much higher than the wages paid to workers in other countries.

To implement their plans for new manufacturing centres in low wage countries, the 1% needed to get countries to lower or remove tarif barriers established to protect local industries. Each country was assessed on what it could contribute to this new system of global manufacturing and international trade. High wage countries like Australia was seen as a place to produce raw materials like coal, iron ore, natural gas and other broad-acre agricultural products like wheat, wool, and beef. Cheap labor countries like China, India, Vietnam, etc. were designated as manufacturing centres for many consumer products including food. So even though Australia produces food stuffs as a raw material, its people are expected to buy cheaper imported food made in low-wage countries.

Under globalization, international investors have considered how each country can be shaped to fit into their world-wide scheme of production and exchange. Political leaders in each country then implement these plans without regard to the needs of their own local population. It is well known that Donald Trump drew much of his support from people who had been thrown out of work by “trade agreements” like North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These people opposed the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) pushed by Obama and Clinton. Dissatisfaction over trade policies had been growing in the US, and Trump wanted to offer a different direction for US economic policy. People who oppose globalization are often accused of racism, but their critics seem to be blind to the economic realities which forces ordinary people to fight against it.


THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF GLOBALIZATION
The people who conceived this new world economic system realized that in order to implement their plans they would need to have all counties change both their basic economic policies and their laws. There are several ways the 1% have used to change the policies of different countries. One strategy is to use force, either in a coup or an invasion. This new system was first applied in Chile after the brutal coup by General Pinochet in September 1973. The economic “reforms” the new government introduced were based on the ideas of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. These “reforms” included privatizing all industries nationalized by former President Allende, privatizing the social security system, and opening up assents to US investors.

However controlling the world is not a simple process, and overt coups or invasions are only part of the total process.. First the 1%, foreign investors mostly from the US, UK and the EU, need to formulate their plans. This is done in universities and think tanks. Slowly, since 1971, the economic policies of the international investors codified by the IMF called the “Washington Consensus” has been compulsory policy for any politician in the West who hopes to enter the parliaments of our democratic system. All must adhere to the dictum of Margaret Thatcher: There Is No Alternative (TINA). This in effect says that no further discussion of these policies is allowed. Talking about alternatives is forbidden.

In order to enact the required policy changes Wall Street needed to promote politicians who would go along with these new policies. In Western democracies this is done by funding the campaigns of people who support these policies. This explains why over the years the different political parties in the West have all adopted the same economic policies required by the global organization of all trade and manufacturing.

For example, in Australia we began to hear debates between “wets” and “dries” on economic policy. The “wets” wanted to keep the tariffs and protect local producers, while the “dries” wanted to encourage “free trade” which was going to be the best for our economy. Of course this was a lie. It was really best only for the foreign investors who owned the giant corporations that were now expanding their manufacturing in low-wage countries. Now objecting to anything called “free trade” is attacked as “protectionism”, as if it is a sin to protect the jobs and the living standards of your country.

The most recent political push for policy changes required by globalization was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the Asia-Pacific region and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US and the EU. It comes as no surprise that Jacob Rockefeller was instrumental in pushing for global trade policies, unlike the Bilderberg group which only concentrated on policies for the US and Europe.


WHAT REALLY DRIVES GLOBALIZATION? CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER

There are several hundred giant corporations and a few very powerful banks in the West, many of them with well-known names. While they may have millions of share-holders, these corporations and banks are controlled by a very small number of people. A recent report by Oxfam found that “Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity.”(6)

This amazing concentration of wealth can be seen in two different ways.

First, over the last 30 years the share of all income possessed by the wealthiest 1% in Anglo-Saxon countries has risen dramatically back to levels not seen since the 1920s. The financial crash of 1929, together with serious social unrest and the huge level of destruction in the West due to WW II not only impoverished millions of ordinary people. It forced governments to enact socially responsible legislation like affordable health care and defend the rights of unions to fight for higher living standards. The super-rich in the United States particularly was pushed into the political wilderness by Roosevelt and his new deal, and their relative share of the national wealth declined significantly. During the 1970 their share of the nation's wealth began to rise again to levels not seen since the roaring 20's.



Second there has been a concentration of ownership by takeovers and mergers which means that many areas of the economy are controlled by only a handful of giant companies. Two examples can be seen in the graphs below. One shows that 37 separate US banks in 1996 were reduced to 4 in 2009. The other shows that 50 separate companies owning media in the US were reduced to 5 in 2004. In Australia there has been a similar concentration among the banks, and now the Australian media is dominated by Rupert Murdoch's News Limited. People are just beginning to realize that this concentration of economic power together with monopoly control over the media has allowed a very few people to gain complete control of the governments in Western countries.




THE MAIN PLAYERS IN GLOBALIZATON
Large-scale globalization began in the 1820s. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the connectivity of the world's economies and cultures grew very quickly. The term globalization is recent, only establishing its current meaning in the 1970s. The large-scale push for policies suitable for globalization was not necessary in the 19th century because at the time the West had direct control of most of the world as colonies. The cotton manufacturers in England did not have to ask the Indian government to allow its imports into India because India was an English colony. However after the destruction of direct colonial rule over the rest of the world the US and other Western countries had to deal with over 100 separate countries.

Giant multi-national companies and banks led by the US work through global financial markets seek to control separate national governments by economic, political and military alliances. In order to control a world made up of separate countries several institutions have been created to implement the policies of the super-rich international investors from the West, primarily the US and the UK. The UN might seem as the main instrument of global government, but real power is in the hands of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.(7) Charles Derber argues in his book People Before Profit,

"These interacting institutions create a new global power system where sovereignty is globalized, taking power and constitutional authority away from nations and giving it to global markets and international bodies".(8)

Derber explains what is the essence of globalization: taking political and economic control away from individual countries and handing it to giant multi-national corporations and banks so they can do whatever they want to maximize their profits. These corporations have as the statutory obligation to create the largest possible profits to distribute to their share-holders. They have no obligation to look after the lives, health, incomes, education of the people in any country. This is why those who oppose globalization see the political leaders who facilitate its policies as traitors. Their loyalty is to the profits of the overseas share-holders, not the people of their own countries.


REFUGEES AND GLOBALIZATION

Refugees have been big news both in Europe and Australia. This is a very complex problem, however few if any of the self-appointed refugee advocates protest the many US organized wars in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria which has caused the largest refugee crisis since WW II. Many people also do not realize that the refugees in the EU have become pawns in the hands of those who push the globalization agenda.

Paul Craig Roberts is an economist and commentator who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan and editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has impeccable conservative credentials as a Washington insider, not a “radical” in his basic beliefs. However he is a vocal critic of globalization and his comments on refugees need to be carefully examined.

Recently billionaire financier George Soros has said the European Union should take at least a million refugees every year to ease the mass exodus of desperate people from the Middle East and Africa. Soros wants the EU to pay an annual amount of "at least €5,000 per refugee, or €20 billion." at a time of severe austerity measures pushed onto the European people. Paul Craig Roberts and many others see globalist policy behind this suggestion. Soros is a well-known supporter of globalization. To Roberts this means the individual countries of the EU are being forced to give up their traditional national identity.

Refugee advocates see this as “racism”. However they fail to realize that the people who push globalization want to undermine the political power of every sovereign country. The counties of Europe are some of the most cohesive and oldest sovereign states in the world. They trace their history back 100s of years and have a common customs, language, literature and religious history. This in turn means they are unified in being German, French, etc. Such unity and solidarity will be an obstacle to the globalists plans to overturn their laws and living standards of the people in these countries. The support given to Donald Trump has its roots in the way that both political parties (and the Greens) have totally supported the globalist agenda in the US itself. The same can be said for Le Pen in France and the support for Brexit in the UK.

We need to ask: Is Soros’ advice regarding Europe absorbing millions of refugees based on something different from humanitarian considerations?

“We have to first ask the question whether Soros’ progressive causes are real or merely a cover for rule by the 1 percent,” Roberts said. “You see, when political boundaries are broken down the result is a power vacuum to which Washington and the 1 percent can move in their pawns.”
One consequence of Washington’s wars over the course of three presidencies has been to “destroy stable countries and leave in their place disorganized, small fiefdoms that war on one another,” Roberts said.(9)

The officially unpopular Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban says philanthropists like Soros must assume part of the blame for the current crisis.

"This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other hand by those activists who support everything that weakens the nation state," Orban told reporters. "This Western mindset and this activist network is perhaps best represented by George Soros."(10)

Three recent events have been deliberately distorted by both academics and the mass media because they are in essence a reaction against different features of globalization: the election of Donald Trump in the US, Brexit and the French election.

Donald Trump and Marie LePen, the French candidate for president, are both widely seen as “fascists” and “racists”. However their real sin in the eyes of the 1% who control the universities and the media is that they are opposed to globalization. They want to change some of the policies needed by the super-rich to implement their plans for the whole world.


ALTERNATIVES TO GLOBALIZATION
Perhaps it is possible to summarize the previous discussion of globalization like this: The central feature of globalization is control of the laws, politics and economy of all countries in order to maximize profits for multi-national corporations and banks. Any law, regulation, political movement or economic plan which diminishes the profits of these foreign corporations must be removed.

So what are the alternatives to Globalization? They are countless! Any country can develop an alternative to globalization by working to plan and organize their economic system with the aim of improving the jobs and living standards of their own citizens rather than maximizing profits for foreign investors. Many of the opponents of globalization believe the place to start is by nationalizing all banks. Apparently William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694 (then a privately owned bank) said "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."

In our world the bank that issues and controls the US dollar is the Federal Reserve Bank, so we are all in effect living under this control. The Federal Reserve is the United States central bank and controls U.S. monetary policy. By changing the supply of money in circulation, the Fed influences interest rates, affecting the mortgage payments of millions of families, causing the financial markets to boom or collapse, and prompting the economy to expand or to stumble into recession. Such awesome power is used to benefit the control of the world by the 1%.(11)

This is why Russia and China want to develop a different financial system independent of the US$. Everything the US does around the world is aimed at stopping this new financial system. It would mean the end of US power and the end of US inspired globalization.


Footnotes:

1. Apart from being a complex process, our understanding of globalization is made more difficult because many of the terms used in political discussion today are linked to it: 'neo-conservative', 'neo-liberal', 'the new world order', 'free markets', 'trade liberalization', and 'de-regulation'. Meanwhile its opponents have another name for it: imperialism.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

3. Some sources on these policies advocated by the IMF are: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/imf-criticism/, http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wbimf/oppose, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crash/imf/

4. The WikiLeaks Files (TWF), London, Verso Books, 2015, p. 50.

5. The WikiLeaks Files (TWF), London, Verso Books, 2015, pp. 42-43.

6. https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world. The world’s 8 richest people are, in order of net worth:
Bill Gates: America founder of Microsoft (net worth $75 billion),
Amancio Ortega: Spanish founder of Inditex which owns the Zara fashion chain (net worth $67 billion),
Warren Buffett: American CEO and largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8 billion),
Carlos Slim Helu: Mexican owner of Grupo Carso (net worth: $50 billion),
Jeff Bezos: American founder, chairman and chief executive of Amazon (net worth: $45.2 billion),
Mark Zuckerberg: American chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook (net worth $44.6 billion),
Larry Ellison: American co-founder and CEO of Oracle  (net worth $43.6 billion),
Michael Bloomberg: American founder, owner and CEO of Bloomberg LP (net worth: $40 billion) Oxfam’s calculations are based on global wealth distribution data provided by the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data book 2016.

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund

8. Derber, Charles (2002). People Before Profit. New York: Picador.

9. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/320747-soros-european-values-orban/

10. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/320747-soros-european-values-orban/

11. http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

Why is there no opposition to the US Empire in the West?

The main freedom the "free world" of the West claims for itself is the freedom to determine the leaders and the laws of any country in the world.

WHY IS THERE NO OPPOSITION TO THE US EMPIRE IN THE WEST?
Day by day the US moves closer to war with Russia and China by provocative words and deeds. While these actions are well publicized, there is virtually no open opposition or public protests to this aggression. We are now closer to WW III than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. For those who know a little history it is strangely similar to the situation in Germany just before WW I. The powerful German Social Democratic Party (SDP), which had once been illegal, voted for German participation in WW I. It was perhaps the largest left political party in Europe. However in spite of the opposition by the Second International to the First World, the SDP totally abandoned any socialist principles they many have had and joined the other pro-war politicians.

When we see the US radicals, from Michael Moore to Noam Chomsky, fall in behind the war candidate, Hillary Clinton, it makes some of us wonder what is going on. This is my attempt to understand why highly political “radicals” in the West do not even seem to recognize that their governments are every bit as evil as Hitler. They “know” Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan had to be opposed. But they fail to notice that the US Empire has replaced the British Empire with a new form of imperial control. The US has waged war after war from 1945 to the present day in order to extend their control over most of world. When we really understand how the West is unique, it will be easier to understand why attacking and invading other parts of the world do not generally spark significant opposition in the West itself. Not only is the West actually different from the rest of the world, it sees itself as different in a most important way.

Unlike any other culture, the West has engaged in conquering and controlling the rest of the world for 500 years. This has given it the deep and powerful feeling of superiority, the right to rule the world, claimed by no other civilization on earth. The opponents of the West, Russia and China, do not want to compete with the West for control of the world, as the West imagines. This is simply projection of Western thinking on them. They just want to be left alone to decide how do develop themselves. And in reality it would be best for the West if they are allowed to do this. All could benefit from their development, particularly Western Europe. Following the US into war with Russia and China will lead to the complete destruction of Western Europe, the cradle of Western culture. The EU is being led into cultural suicide by the US. A cynic might say it is perhaps a fitting end for them, but it is not necessary. Only time will tell how self-destructive Western culture will be.



HOW THE WEST IS UNIQUE
Many people have tried to explain what is special or unique about the West, usually in a way that is flattering to people in the West.(1) To me there are only two things unique about the West in world history. First, all the major Western powers have conquered, colonized and/or controlled part of the world far removed from their shores. No other countries, regions or empires had ever exercised effective control over such distances. This only became possible by a series of improvements in shipbuilding and navigation.(2) Even though people associate “galleons” with the Spanish, all major Western powers used galleons, including the English navy. They were useful both for trade and warfare, and quite expensive:

“The expenses involved in galleon construction were enormous. Hundreds of expert tradesmen (including carpenters, pitch-melters, blacksmiths, coopers, shipwrights, etc.) worked day and night for months before a galleon was seaworthy. To cover the expense, galleons were often funded by groups of wealthy businessmen who pooled resources for a new ship."(3)

One goal of the Western powers was to take the spice trade from the Arab traders. Each country aimed for a monopoly of this trade to maximize their profits. Trade between the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia and China had been going on for centuries. The galleons were fitted out for trade and for war because the Western powers wanted to control all trade routes and were determined to remove any competition by any means, including war. Wealthy merchants knew there could be no profitable trade without war, so building galleons was an investment.


A Spanish galleon

By 1500 European ships could sail reliably over the giant bodies of water like the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Their methods of conquest and control began with warships and resident colonial administrations. Wars and coups are still the main method used by Western powers to subdue any signs of defiance, however routine control is exercised by banks and the financial power of debt. Once a country becomes heavily indebted, they must do as the banks wish or face non-military sanctions like currency manipulation.

The second unique feature of the West is that the leaders and most of the people in the West assume that they have the right to exercise this kind of control over the rest of the world. The Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) divided the lands outside Europe between Spain and Portugal, the leading naval powers in the West at the time. Earlier Pope Alexander VI had published a decree “inter caetera” to the manage the conflicts between these two Catholic countries over who had the right to control the parts of the world recently discovered by different explorers. The leaders of all Western powers from that time on have assumed they have the same “rights” first claimed by Spain and Portugal.


A copy of the Treaty of Tordesillas

THE PLACE OF THE WEST IN WORLD HISTORY
At the time these claims were first made by Portugal and Spain there were many different cultures and civilizations around the world, most of them older than the countries in the West who claimed the right to rule the world. What is now Western Europe was formed out of the remains of the western half of the old Roman Empire. People in the West tend to forget that in 330 AD, well before Rome fell to the barbarian invaders in 476 AD, the Emperor Constantine shifted the capital of the Roman Empire to the city we now know as Constantinople. This eastern part of the old Roman Empire is called the Byzantine Empire, and was named after the city, Byzantium, which Constantine made his new capital. The sacking of Rome did not mean the end of the Roman Empire. It only meant that one part of the empire was lost to the invading tribes.

After the barbarian invasions virtually all the culture, literature and philosophy of the Roman Empire disappeared for several centuries from what had been the western part of the empire. This is called the Dark Ages. During the Renaissance and later European thinkers liked to think that their culture was a direct development from that of ancient Greece and Rome. This is only half-true at best. Until the West began to discover the writings of the ancient world from the Moors, their culture consisted of the few texts from the Late Roman Empire which the Roman Catholic Church approved of. The Renaissance was simply the discovery of everything about the ancient world that had been hidden from the people of the West for hundred of years. In reality all of Roman culture survived and continued its development in the eastern part of the Empire. Eventually this culture was passed on to the scholars of the new Muslim society we know as the Ottoman Empire and the new civilization we know as Orthodox Russia.

All over the world, in the Middle East, Africa, South America, Iran, Southeast Asia, China, and India, civilizations based on an agricultural surplus had arisen from as early as 8000BC. However, none of them had been able to exercise control over territory they were not connected to by land or by short sea voyages. The ability of Western countries like Spain and Portugal to occupy and control land separated from them by 1000s of kilometers of open ocean was unprecedented in world history. According to the old maxim, Might makes Right, the powers of Western Europe assumed they had the right to control any part of the globe they could conquer and occupy successfully. This belief has continued to be a central part of Western culture right up to today. For 500 years it has been “normal” for countries in the West to decide and determine what was going to happen in the rest of the world.

This blindness also stops people from realizing that this long period of Western domination is virtually finished. Why? For the last 500 year the West has been able to wage its wars around the world without penalty. What has changed is that Russia and China have now decided that they will not tolerate the Western aggression against Syria and other countries which are being forced to do what is in the interest of giant US corporations and bank but not in the interest of the countries themselves. Furthermore, they have the ability to totally destroy all the countries in the West, including the continental US, even though the leaders of the US and the EU seem unaware of the fate which awaits them if they are stupid enough to start a serious conflict with these very determined opponents. They will not back down. They will not allow the US and its puppets to restrict the economic development of non-Western countries. Russia has said that anyone who wages war against it will not escape the consequences, as France and Germany did when they invaded Russia under Napoleon and Hitler. Now there will be a price to pay for Western aggression. This means that the 500 year long domination of the world by the West will soon come to an end. Those who live by nuclear weapons will die by nuclear weapons if they use them again.


THE MOST INFLUENTIAL ENGLISH-SPEAKING PHILOSOPHER OF THE 19TH CENTURY
Most European thinkers since 1500 have assumed that the Western right to rule the world was legitimate and justified. The way this has been expressed has differed over time. The early conquerors always thought of themselves as doing God's work, spreading the Christian message and saving the souls of the heathens or savages they encountered. Another line of thought was the “White Man's Burden”, the moral duty of well-meaning Europeans to educate and improved the lives of the people they conquered. Today we are told by the leaders of the US that it is exceptional. Unlike other countries, they know what is best for the world, namely their version of democracy and free market capitalism. They also claim a higher duty, called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This demands that the US and NATO attack countries who do terrible things to their own people. But advocating R2P and free trade for the whole world are not really new. English speakers need only look at the doctrines of the well-known “democratic” political theorist John Stuart Mill.

J.S. Mill's father, James Mill, worked in the India House for 17 years and eventually rose to be the head of the East India Company in 1830. The East India Company “came to rule large areas of India with its own private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 and lasted until 1858.”(4) James Mill also wrote the famous History of British India. Its “severe Utilitarian analysis of Indian civilization also popularized among European readers an image of the subcontinent as perpetually backward and undeveloped. Mill never actually visited India.”(5)

John Stuart Mill is often seen as “the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control.”(6) He is cited as a major defender and supporter of democracy, but his major concern was to provide freedom for the individual. He was actually rather nervous about democracy even in Britain itself. He suggested that some people, employers of labour, be given more votes in his ideal democratic system because they are more intelligent that the people who work for them. But he does not advocate any kind of democracy for Ireland because the Irish would be more inclined to shelter a law-breaker than turn them in. Democracy was also out of the question for India, as its people were still in their “nonage”. This is just a polite way of saying the people of India are children, not grown up enough for the responsibility required in a democracy.


MILL ON HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND FREE TRADE

Mill wrote on many subjects in articles and books throughout his life. While his main focus was on Britain itself, he does comment on two topics which reveal his total acceptance of the Western right to rule the world and dictate how other countries should conduct themselves. In 1859 Mill wrote an article entitled “A Few Words on Non-Intervention”. It was the first essay which elaborates the policy we now know as “humanitarian intervention”. Chomsky gives the following account of Mill's view. Here we see a British exceptionalism no different from the US version.

“His essay asked the question of whether England should intervene in the ugly world, Europe and elsewhere, or whether it should keep to its own business and let the barbarians fight it out. His conclusion, nuanced and complex, was that balancing the various conditions, England should undertake to intervene. Although, as he said, by doing so, England will endure the obloquy and abuse of the Europeans, who will seek base motives in what England is doing because they cannot comprehend that England is what he called a “novelty in the world,” an angelic power that seeks nothing for itself and acts only for the benefits of others.”(7)


The historical occasion for this essay was the “Indian Mutiny” in 1857. Britain crushed this open armed opposition in India with a savagery well publicized in Britain. Some genuine liberals were opposed to this behaviour but J.S. Mill, who, like his father, worked for the East India Company, defended the actions as necessary not for Britain but for the good of the Indians themselves.

Mill also defended British position during the Opium Wars between the British and China. China prohibited the importation of opium. To change this policy, Britain sent in their gunboats and forced the Chinese to accept Britain's conception of free trade. Mill defended the British view on the grounds that the Chinese government was infringing the freedom of the Chinese to buy opium:

“On the other hand, there are questions relating to interference with trade, which are essentially questions of liberty; such as the Maine Law, already touched upon; the prohibition of the importation of opium into China; the restriction of the sale of poisons; all cases, in short, where the object of the interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller, but on that of the buyer.”(8)

The basic problem was that the British had a poor balance of trade with China. China wanted nothing the British had to sell, so the British had to pay in gold for what they want to buy from China to sell in Europe. After they changed the Chinese opposition to free trade they were able to sell the opium (which they grew in India) to the Chinese. This drained the gold from China to the banks of London. What a perfect example of the way Britain was a “novelty in the world,” an angelic power that seeks nothing for itself and acts only for the benefit of others.


WESTERN VALUES AND THE UN CHARTER
We can see in the guidance of Pope Alexander VI a clear statement of Western values which are alive and well today. His message is that there is nothing morally or spiritually wrong with invading, conquering or taking control of any non-Western part of the world. The leaders and many of the people in Western countries have been eager for centuries to invade other parts of the world. After WW II most of the outright colonies of Western countries were set free. Furthermore, the Nuremberg Trial and the UN Charter were based on the primacy of sovereign nations and non-intervention in a countries' internal affairs. However the US quickly put forward its free market policies as a model for the world's future and the principles of non-intervention have been ignored by the US for the last 70 years.

Many people believe crimes against humanity or genocide is the ultimate crime under international law. This is a distortion of the conclusions drawn by all nations after WW II. The ultimate crime is aggression. From the Nuremberg trial:

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”(9)

If you look at the actions taken by the US against Syria, you will find that articles 1, 2, 33 and 39 of the UN Charter ban such aggression. According to the people at the time, the worst thing done by Hitler's Germany was not killing 6 million Jews, but invading Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway and the Soviet Union. At least 20 million people died in Europe as a result of these invasions, and many millions more died from the Japanese invasion of China and most of Southeast Asia.

Perhaps one way to see the collective result of WW II as set down in the Trials of German and Japanese leaders, as well as the UN Charter, is to understand them as a complete repudiation of the Western values which by that time had been operating for 450 years. This is why the US and NATO wants us to forget about the UN Charter and the principles of international law set down over 70 years ago. The main freedom the "free world" of the West claims for itself is the freedom to determine the leaders and the laws of any country in the world. As we have clearly seen since 9/11, the freedom of individuals means nothing in the West. All of the ideals of the West are just nice words. The real values of the West are now plain for all to see - the same values that have been practiced for 500 years. We rule the world. Watch out if you disagree. War will come your way.


Footnotes:

1. I understand by the West the major countries of Western Europe and the US. There are many other countries seen as part of the West now, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. These were all created as colonies of the British Empire, but did not play a major part in the historical division of the world that took place between 1500 and 1900.

2. The leaders in this field were the Portuguese. “Their position on the Atlantic made them a race of mariners able to cope with the risks of the sea. In their long crusade against the Moors they had built up a formidable naval power. (…) They were ahead of other powers in the construction of 'great ships' able to accommodate large numbers of men for long ocean voyages. (…) In the eastern seas they excelled the Moors in both fighting and navigating their ships, and the ships themselves were in every way superior to those of the Arabs, which were built for sailing only under favourable monsoon conditions” D.G.E Hall, The History of South-East Asia, 3rd edition, St Martin's Press, New York, 1970, p. 239.

3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galleon

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Government_of_India_Act_1833

5. https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Mill

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

7. https://chomsky.info/20060119/

8. http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty5.html

9. http://thesaker.is/a-multi-level-analysis-of-the-us-cruise-missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/

Seven reasons to reject the claim Syria launched a sarin gas attack on April 4th, 2017

There are many indications that Australia is going along with the US in its claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack on the town of Khan Sheikhun in southern Idlib province on April 4. This issue will be used as a pretext to increase US (and Australian) military action in that country. Because the Syrians and Russians have made it abundantly clear that further US military activity in Syria will not go unopposed, this conflict could easily escalate into a much wider war.(1) There are at least seven good reasons why we should reject this claim. Some of them are so simple that you can see that the claim is false with your own eyes.


1. A US weapons expert argues that there is no evidence such an attack took place.

In an article posted on 21st of April, Theodore Postol repeated his assessment that there is no real evidence that such an attack occurred. He is professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a specialist in weapons issues. At the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, he advised on missile basing, and he later was a scientific consultant to the chief of naval operations at the Pentagon. At the end of his article he says:

The facts are now very clear: There is very substantial evidence that the president and his staff took decisions without any intelligence, or far more likely ignored intelligence from the professional community that they were given, to execute a missile attack in the Middle East that had the danger of creating an inadvertent military confrontation with Russia. The attack has already created a very serious further downward spiral in Russian-U.S. relations and has had the effect of seriously undermining U.S. efforts to defeat Islamic State, a common enemy of the United States, Russia and the Western European powers.
(2)

The link to his article is given in the footnotes. There you can read his justification for this conclusion.


2. Photos and videos taken at the time do not show any of the signs of poisoning by sarin. When struck by sarin, victims rapidly develop a range of symptoms including urination, defecation and vomiting. None of this can be seen on any of the relevant footage.



This point is made quite clearly by a person with an extensive background in biology:

But here's a little secret from 20 years of teaching and doing research in the neurosciences: trust the biology. It doesn't matter what the politicians and CIA, and MSM, and OPCW, and WHO say, if the biology does not show a sarin attack, then there wasn't a sarin attack.
When a person is poisoned by sarin, by the time the brain realizes it isn't getting enough oxygen, it is too late to complain. The respiratory muscles are also the muscles used to gasp, cough, pant, cry, and scream. But sarin paralyzes those muscles, which is precisely why the person wants to gasp, cough, pant, cry, scream. It's a negative feedback loop of the worst kind.
Anoxia is when the amount of oxygen in the blood drops too low to sustain life. Anoxia is what sarin victims succumb to, and the reason is that sarin paralyzes the muscles required to move air in and out of the lungs -- the respiratory muscles. Understanding this simple pharmacological fact is key to understanding so much of what is going on in the fake sarin vids.
(3)

In other words, without going to a lab, we can see from the video/photographic evidence itself that the people in the photos are not suffering from a sarin attack.


3. In a real sarin attack, the victims, responders and photographers would all be dead.
Many of the photos and videos show people trying to assist the victims, and of course there are the photographers taking the pictures. Look at the photo below and then read the following paragraph:



A video of a person gasping for breath really brings us to the edge of our collective seat. And we wish such people all the best. But don't be a sucker: they are not dying of sarin intoxication. Had they come into such bad fortune as to be poisoned by sarin, they would have died painfully, but quietly, before the photographer could get there. (If the photographer was close enough to the attack get the photos and vids we see on the internet, he would be dead, too. This whole thing is goofy from a biological point of view.)(4)

In other words, if this was a photo of a victim of a sarin gas attack, the person would look a lot worse than this person does, the people around them would be dead, as would the photographer. There are pictures on the internet of Japanese workers responding to the sarin gas attack there, and they are completely dressed in silver suits and helmets to protect themselves from the effects of the poison. We see none of this protective clothing in any of the videos or pictures.


4. The UN organizations responsible for reporting about poison gas attacks did not visit Syria and did not collect the samples themselves. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are said to have been involved in the investigation of what happened. However the investigation took place in Turkey and was based on "around 30 victims brought to Turkey for treatment". It was not collected on the spot in Syria and the collection of evidence was not supervised by WHO or OPCW. Examples were given to the WHO and OPCW "following requests" for such material.




5. It was reported on April 11 that Turkey sent a report (dated 06.06.17) to the UN stating that the people they examined were suffering from chlorine gas, not sarin.




6. The Turkish Health Minister claimed that the victims had suffered from a sarin gas attack on the same day Turkey sent a report to the UN saying it was chlorine.



7. The OPCW released a preliminary report about the attack one day after their representatives witnessed autopsies and spoke to victims. It mentions chlorine not sarin.



Isn't it obvious that we are seeing THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ALL OVER AGAIN!
The first victim of war is truth. Then the killing begins.....


Footnotes:

1. Australia is in exactly the same position with respect to the US threat of military action against North Korea. The Chinese have insisted that the only way to deal with that country is by negotiation. It is virtually certain that China would respond militarily to any kind of attack on North Korea by the US and its allies.

2. http://www.truthdig.com/repo/item/with_error_fixed_evidence_against_sarin_attack_remains_convincing_20170421#.WP8IGB5C6ws.facebook

3. http://logophere.com/Topics2017/17-04/17_017-BLA-Sarin.htm

4. Ibid.

What is Unique About the West? It's Not What You Think!

Many people have tried to explain what is special or unique about the West, usually in a way that is flattering to people in the West.(1) My answer has nothing to do with “race”, genetics, intelligence, religion or political traditions. To me there are only two things unique about the West in world history.


THE TWO UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE WEST
First, all the major Western powers have conquered, colonized and/or controlled part of the world far removed from their shores. No other countries, regions or empires had ever exercised effective control over such distances. This only became possible by a series of improvements in shipbuilding and navigation.(2) Even though people associate “galleons” with the Spanish, all major Western powers used galleons, including the English navy. They were useful both for trade and warfare, and quite expensive:

“The expenses involved in galleon construction were enormous. Hundreds of expert tradesmen (including carpenters, pitch-melters, blacksmiths, coopers, shipwrights, etc.) worked day and night for months before a galleon was seaworthy. To cover the expense, galleons were often funded by groups of wealthy businessmen who pooled resources for a new ship."(3)

One goal of the Western powers was to take the spice trade from the Arab traders. Each country aimed for a monopoly of this trade to maximize their profits. Trade between the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia and China had been going on for centuries. The galleons were fitted out for trade and for war because the Western powers wanted to control all trade routes and were determined to remove any competition by any means, including war. Wealthy merchants knew there could be no profitable trade without war, so building galleons was an investment.


A Spanish galleon

By 1500 European ships could sail reliably over the giant bodies of water like the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Their methods of conquest and control began with warships and resident colonial administrations. Wars and coups are still the main method used by Western powers to subdue any signs of defiance, however routine control is exercised by banks and the financial power of debt. Once a country becomes heavily indebted, they must do as the banks wish or face non-military sanctions like currency manipulation.

The second unique feature of the West is that the leaders and most of the people in the West assume that they have the right to exercise this kind of control over the rest of the world. The Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529) divided the lands outside Europe between Spain and Portugal, the leading naval powers in the West at the time. Earlier Pope Alexander VI had published a decree “inter caetera” to the manage the conflicts between these two Catholic countries over who had the right to control the parts of the world recently discovered by different explorers. The leaders of all Western powers from that time on have assumed they have the same “rights” first claimed by Spain and Portugal.


A copy of the Treaty of Tordesillas

THE PLACE OF THE WEST IN WORLD HISTORY
At the time these claims were first made by Portugal and Spain there were many different cultures and civilizations around the world, most of them older than the countries in the West who claimed the right to rule the world. What is now Western Europe was formed out of the remains of the western half of the old Roman Empire. People in the West tend to forget that in 330 AD, well before Rome fell to the barbarian invaders in 476 AD, the Emperor Constantine shifted the capital of the Roman Empire to the city we now know as Constantinople. This eastern part of the old Roman Empire is called the Byzantine Empire, and was named after the city, Byzantium, which Constantine made his new capital. The sacking of Rome did not mean the end of the Roman Empire. It only meant that one part of the empire was lost to the invading tribes.

After the barbarian invasions virtually all the culture, literature and philosophy of the Roman Empire disappeared for several centuries from what had been the western part of the empire. This is called the Dark Ages. However all of Roman culture survived and continued its development in the eastern part of the Empire. Eventually this culture was passed on to the scholars of the new Muslim society we know as the Ottoman Empire and the new civilization we know as Orthodox Russia.

All over the world, in the Middle East, Africa, South America, Iran, Southeast Asia, China, and India, civilizations based on an agricultural surplus had arisen from as early as 8000BC. However, none of them had been able to exercise control over territory they were not connected to by land or by short sea voyages. The ability of Western countries like Spain and Portugal to occupy and control land separated from them by 1000s of kilometers of open ocean was unprecedented in world history. According to the old maxim, Might makes Right, the powers of Western Europe assumed they had the right to control any part of the globe they could conquer and occupy successfully.


THE MOST INFLUENTIAL ENGLISH-SPEAKING PHILOSOPHER OF THE 19TH CENTURY
Most European thinkers since 1500 have assumed that the Western right to rule the world was legitimate and justified. The way this has been expressed has differed over time. The early conquerors always thought of themselves as doing God's work, spreading the Christian message and saving the souls of the heathens or savages they encountered. Another line of thought was the “White Man's Burden”, the moral duty of well-meaning Europeans to educate and improved the lives of the people they conquered. Today we are told by the leaders of the US that it is exceptional. Unlike other countries, they know what is best for the world, namely their version of democracy and free market capitalism. They also claim a higher duty, called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This demands that the US and NATO attack countries who do terrible things to their own people. But advocating R2P and free trade for the whole world are not really new. English speakers need only look at the doctrines of the well-known “democratic” political theorist John Stuart Mill.

J.S. Mill's father, James Mill, worked in the India House for 17 years and eventually rose to be the head of the East India Company in 1830. The East India Company “came to rule large areas of India with its own private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 and lasted until 1858.”(4) James Mill also wrote the famous History of British India. Its “severe Utilitarian analysis of Indian civilization also popularized among European readers an image of the subcontinent as perpetually backward and undeveloped. Mill never actually visited India.”(5)

John Stuart Mill is often seen as “the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control.”(6) He is cited as a major defender and supporter of democracy, but his major concern was to provide freedom for the individual. He was actually rather nervous about democracy even in Britain itself. He suggested that some people, employers of labour, be given more votes in his ideal democratic system because they are more intelligent that the people who work for them. But he does not advocate any kind of democracy for Ireland because the Irish would be more inclined to shelter a law-breaker than turn them in. Democracy was also out of the question for India, as its people were still in their “nonage”. This is just a polite way of saying the people of India are children, not grown up enough for the responsibility required in a democracy.


MILL ON HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND FREE TRADE

Mill wrote on many subjects in articles and books throughout his life. While his main focus was on Britain itself, he does comment on two topics which reveal his total acceptance of the Western right to rule the world and dictate how other countries should conduct themselves. In 1859 Mill wrote an article entitled “A Few Words on Non-Intervention”. It was the first essay which elaborates the policy we now know as “humanitarian intervention”. Chomsky gives the following account of Mill's view. Here we see a British exceptionalism no different from the US version.

“His essay asked the question of whether England should intervene in the ugly world, Europe and elsewhere, or whether it should keep to its own business and let the barbarians fight it out. His conclusion, nuanced and complex, was that balancing the various conditions, England should undertake to intervene. Although, as he said, by doing so, England will endure the obloquy and abuse of the Europeans, who will seek base motives in what England is doing because they cannot comprehend that England is what he called a “novelty in the world,” an angelic power that seeks nothing for itself and acts only for the benefits of others.”(7)


The historical occasion for this essay was the “Indian Mutiny” in 1857. Britain crushed this open armed opposition in India with a savagery well publicized in Britain. Some genuine liberals were opposed to this behaviour but J.S. Mill, who, like his father, worked for the East India Company, defended the actions as necessary not for Britain but for the good of the Indians themselves.

Mill also defended British position during the Opium Wars between the British and China. China prohibited the importation of opium. To change this policy, Britain sent in their gunboats and forced the Chinese to accept Britain's conception of free trade. Mill defended the British view on the grounds that the Chinese government was infringing the freedom of the Chinese to buy opium:

“On the other hand, there are questions relating to interference with trade, which are essentially questions of liberty; such as the Maine Law, already touched upon; the prohibition of the importation of opium into China; the restriction of the sale of poisons; all cases, in short, where the object of the interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller, but on that of the buyer.”(8)

The basic problem was that the British had a poor balance of trade with China. China wanted nothing the British had to sell, so the British had to pay in gold for what they want to buy from China to sell in Europe. After they changed the Chinese opposition to free trade they were able to sell the opium (which they grew in India) to the Chinese. This drained the gold from China to the banks of London. What a perfect example of the way Britain was a “novelty in the world,” an angelic power that seeks nothing for itself and acts only for the benefit of others.


WESTERN VALUES AND THE UN CHARTER
We can see in the guidance of Pope Alexander VI a clear statement of Western values which are alive and well today. His message is that there is nothing morally or spiritually wrong with invading, conquering or taking control of any non-Western part of the world. The leaders and many of the people in Western countries have been eager for centuries to invade other parts of the world. After WW II most of the outright colonies of Western countries were set free. Furthermore, the Nuremberg Trial and the UN Charter were based on the primacy of sovereign nations and non-intervention in a countries' internal affairs. However the US quickly put forward its free market policies as a model for the world's future and the principles of non-intervention have been ignored by the US for the last 70 years.

Many people believe crimes against humanity or genocide is the ultimate crime under international law. This is a distortion of the conclusions drawn by all nations after WW II. The ultimate crime is aggression. From the Nuremberg trial:

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”(9)

If you look at the actions taken by the US against Syria, you will find that articles 1, 2, 33 and 39 of the UN Charter ban such aggression. According to the people at the time, the worst thing done by Hitler's Germany was not killing 6 million Jews, but invading Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway and the Soviet Union. At least 20 million people died in Europe as a result of these invasions, and many millions more died from the Japanese invasion of China and most of Southeast Asia.

Perhaps one way to see the collective result of WW II as set down in the Trials of German and Japanese leaders, as well as the UN Charter, is to understand them as a complete repudiation of the Western values which by that time had been operating for 450 years. This is why the US and NATO wants us to forget about the UN Charter and the principles of international law set down over 70 years ago. The main freedom the "free world" of the West claims for itself is the freedom to determine the leaders and the laws of any country in the world. As we have clearly seen since 9/11, the freedom of individuals means nothing in the West. All of the ideals of the West are just nice words. The real values of the West are now plain for all to see - the same values that have been practiced for 500 years. We rule the world. Watch out if you disagree. War will come your way.


Footnotes:

1. What is the West? Here I assume that the West is made up of the countries in Western Europe, the UK and the USA. There are many other countries seen as part of the West now, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. These were all created as colonies of the British Empire, but did not play a major part in the historical division of the world that took place between 1500 and 1900.

2. The leaders in this field were the Portuguese. “Their position on the Atlantic made them a race of mariners able to cope with the risks of the sea. In their long crusade against the Moors they had built up a formidable naval power. (…) They were ahead of other powers in the construction of 'great ships' able to accommodate large numbers of men for long ocean voyages. (…) In the eastern seas they excelled the Moors in both fighting and navigating their ships, and the ships themselves were in every way superior to those of the Arabs, which were built for sailing only under favourable monsoon conditions” D.G.E Hall, The History of South-East Asia, 3rd edition, St Martin's Press, New York, 1970, p. 239.

3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galleon

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Government_of_India_Act_1833

5. https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Mill

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

7. https://chomsky.info/20060119/

8. http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty5.html

9. http://thesaker.is/a-multi-level-analysis-of-the-us-cruise-missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/