the daily stirrer

Globalisation - Spreading Its Tentacles All Around The World

It has been clear for some years now that the USA, backed by its main NATO and EU military allies the UK and France (the FUKUS axis has been trying to provoke Russian into firing the shot that will be heard around the world and recognised as the startiung signal for World War Three.
Ironically after the way the US has spent sixty years branding Russia the agressor, the Kremlin leadership has shown restraint and, backed by it's allies China and Iran, has chosen to fight an economic war. There will be less blood but possibly more hardship and death as the poor nations suffer most.
edited by Ian R Thorpe

Contact us:

Globalization: Great For The Elite And Corporate Business; Terrible For You




What Is A Globalist? - Globalim Explained

If you have been following political trends in what we can only refer to as 'the developed world', you will probably be bored with the words "globalist" and "globalism" which tend to be bandied about a lot, usually by people who call themselves 'the left', 'liberals', 'socialists' or 'progressives'. In fact the advocates of globalism (except for the 0.001 per centers with names like Soros, Rothschild, Buffet and so on,) far from being the social justice warriors of their imagination, are avid supporters of the establishment, centralisation of authority, the abolition of free speech, social engineering and all the socio - economic policies well - read people associate with fascism rather than liberalism.

As The Rebel's Lauren Southern explains in the embedded video, some of the people opposing globalism are nationalists, or patriots (they see globalism as a threat to the sovereignty of their nation... whichever nation that happens to be). Others argue that the term "globalism" is just a scary catch-all word invented by Trump supporters, or the alt right. A word that means nothing at best, and is a racist code at worst.

But while mainstream media and mainstream politicians present globalism and all it entails, the free movement of goods (from low labour cost economies to wealthy nations), people (from poor nations to those where workers have higher expectations) and money (from taxpayers pockets to corporate treasuries and then to tax havens) as caring and sharing, cuddly, inclusive and desirable, the only people it really benefits are those who have their $£€millions invested in corporate stocks, government bonds and commodities futures.

The reality is that globalism means something very specific, and, if like us you value democracy, individualism, free speech, free access to information, or any of the foundation values of Western civilization. If you are not yet sure that globalism threatens your freedom and the integrity of your community, after watching the video you may have a different view.

RELATED POSTS:
The Global Elite Global collapse Global corporateocracy Globalist Robbery Globalisation of Serfdom Global Kleptocracy Global Trad crash Agends 21 The Global Government Conspiracy Globalisation Menu Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]





Globalization: The False Narrative and The Death Of Western Steel Industry

Xavier Connolly, 9 August, 2016

In popular perception, the downfall of the steel industry in Britain, Europe and the USA symbolizes the decline of manufacturing industry in the developed world more clearly than any other of the past half century's economic trends. Over the past few months in Britain two of the last remainings blast furnace steel manufacturing plant, Redcar in North East England and Port Talbot in South Wales have been in the news, both were threatened with closure, in both cases that would have had dire consequences for the local economies. Similar stories have been played out in Germany, France, Sweden, Italy and, most drastically in the USA where the area dubbed 'the rust belt, from Pennsylvania and New Jersey on the east coast up to the Great Lakes is dotted with the skeletal remains of abandoned steel works. Since 1975, employment in steel making has dropped by around 75 percent .

The final nail was hammered into the coffin of Scotland's great tradition of steelmaking in 2015 when Inian based Tata Steel, part of the Tata Industries conglomerate, announced plans to axe more than 1,000 workers across the UK, including at its two Scottish sites, Clydebridge plant in Cambuslang – which helped produce some of the world’s most famous liners, and the Dalzell works in Motherwell shut. While diehards say Scottish steelmaking is not dead as long as the few small operations still producing steel products can keep going, it is certainly on life support. Though academic research projects have been set up to investigate the decline of steelmaking in Scotland (and elsewhere I would guess), no amount of academic research will bring back the jobs lost in areas once dependent on steel.

There has been a similar decline, and for similar reasons in Europe as this Bloomberg article on steelmaking's decline details.

The cause of the problem seems clear, globalisation; and its influence reached into almost all industries. UK manufacturing has been in relative decline since the 1960s. Manufacturing as a share of real GDP in the USA and Europe has fallen from 30% in 1970 to 12% in 2010. Manufacturing as a whole lost about 15 million jobs from 2000 to 2015 across the developed nations. No wonder politicians of the new nationalist movements are jumping on the anti-globalization bandwagon.

Globalization seems guilty as charged — but nothing is ever quite as simple as the popular press would have you believe.

Though global trade has helped reshape manufacturing, it is only one force of many. The appeal of making it the prime villain is largely polititical. We can blame manufacturing’s problems and dislocations on unfair competition and foreign governments subsidising exports (they do), profit hungry multi national corporations that feel no loyalty to the consumers that have swelled their profits for decades, and disloyal consumers who grab the cheapest goods rather than thinking about the longer term consequenses of buying foreign for the economy of their own nation and the jobs of their neighbours. If they behaved better, the local economy would improve, the argument goes. There is some truth to this, but it is hardly the whole truth — as the case of steel shows.

Despite plummeting industry employment, steel production in the developed nations is roughly where it’s been for decades, between 90 million and 120 million tons a year. All things are relative of course and as global population and global consumption have grown, what has declined is the share of the global market claimed by those traditional steel producing nations. While globalists will say it is true that dozens of steel plants have closed, in fact dozens of newer, more efficient plants have opened. Productivity (a.k.a., efficiency) has increased dramatically.

The industry’s largest change of the past half-century is the rise of electric arc furnaces. If we look at this realistically it is not steel manufacturing but steel remanufactiring. There are now two dominant ways of making steel.

The traditional way, using bl;ast furnaces, start with a furnace, technologically far removed but in prinicple similat to the ones first built by Abraham Darby in Shropshire, England, in 1708 which made the large scale production of iron and steel possible: Darby used coke rather than coal. Coke burns hotter and made it poossible to obtain the consistent hight temperatures needed to smelt Iron ore with limestone to form pig iron; then pig iron is boiled in a basic oxygen furnace to make molten steel, which is formed into various finished products (sheet for cars, beams for construction and the like).

Electric arc steel mills are the 'modern, efficient' way to make steel. Their raw material is scrap steel, which is melted in electric arc furnaces to be reworked into useable material. The mini-mills have a big cost advantage over the older, blast furnace steel mills. From 1970 to 2015, their share of steel production went from 15 percent to 63 percent, reports the American Iron and Steel Institute, an industry group. You will have noticed however that the electric arc method does not make new steel but reuses old steel. That's fine, but long term it is just kicking the can down the road.

Too often corporate bosses only look at the bottom line. So reusing 'previously owned' steel might offer cost savings, in a global economy that is based on infinite growth, it ignores the question of what happens when all the blast furnaces have been scrapped and we don't have enough recyclable steel to feed the monster?

This has huge implications. In a recent study, economists Allan Collard-Wexler of Duke University and Jan De Loecker of Princeton University found that the spread of mini-mills — with their greater efficiency — explained most of the industry’s job loss. Some economists dismiss this by pointing out that even if there were no foreign trade in steel, most of those jobs would have vanished anyway. The least efficient vertically integrated plants were forced to close. It is an oversimplistic view, if political and financial elites had not promoted movement of goods, some of the blast furnaces would have been replaced and electric arc furnaces for recycling scrap steel would have taken up the jobs.

Thanks to globalisation, corporate bosses seized the opportunity provided by the new technology to move jobs abroat to low labour cost environments where employmee protection laws and safety standards are lax. Only through the savings made by offshoring livelihoods could the kind of reductions in production costs be acieved that made it viable to ship heavy, bilky material like steel halfway round the world.

Steelmakers face some legitimate trade issues. There’s a global steel glut for one thing, this is because China and India sharply expanded their steel industries on the basis of unrealistic assumptions of continued strong economic growth (even at their economies were draining the lifeblood from European and American manufacturing. The numbers are breathtaking, according to a report by analyst Lucy Lu of the Peterson Institute. Since 2005, global steelmaking capacity has increased by three-quarters, with China accounting for 78 percent of the gain. China now represents 50 percent of world production, up from 31 percent in 2005.

Looking beyond steel, the standard narrative about the decline of manufacturing in the west is incomplete. It blames the loss of factory jobs mainly on foreign imports and the moves by corporate busineeses to move manufacturing work abroad. That’s part of the problem, but a larger cause is — as with steel — “rapid productivity growth,” and the replacement of human labour with machines. More efficient and cheaper manufacturing methods and technologies mean that fewer workers can produce the same output.

As was inevitable, prices have plunged in global markets as China and others have tried to export some of their surplus capacity. Traditional producers are now trying to protect their industries by complaining to the World Trade Organisation of subsidised imports being illegally or unfairly dumped by foreign governments. Politicians and bureaucrats say what’s needed is a global agreement that reduces the worst concentrations of excess capacity, starting with China. U.S. steelworkers and companies cannot compete against foreign subsidies. In fact all that is needed is an end to globalisation and a return to nations minding their own business and industry primarily serving domestic markets.

The ruling elite's obsession with globalization also makes a lie of all the blether about 'reducing carbon emissions to control global warming and save the planet. Every industrial process has a carbon footprint, so the only way to slow the increase in carbon emissions if we really believe the scaremongering about climate change) is to reduce growth. We have to abandon the growth based economicv models, find a way to stabilise population, and produce according to needs not in pursuit of ever growing profits.

Return to contents table
RELATED POSTS:
Global collapse
The global corporatocracy
The globalisation of serfdom
Global trade crash
Living within the conspiracy
The New World Order (catalogue)
New World Order omnibus
New World Order's cashless society
New world order is an old idea
Free trade conspiracy
Global government on the way
Corporate monopolyu men
Corporate globalism a threat to individual freedom
Chasing Bubbles
The Wisdom Of Crowds
The Post’s View: The end of globalization? Anne Applebaum: Russia’s blow to globalization Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]



End Of An Era: The Collapse Of The Petrodollar System

by Phil T Looker

“The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or euros. The sooner the better.” (US Libertarian congressman Ron Paul)

The relationship between global oil and gas markets and the global financial system is like that of conjoined twins. The hydrocarbon souces of energy, in particular oil, and the state of the global economy became inexorably linked due to the emergence of the petrodollar system in world trade during the 1970s. This in turn was which was a result of World War Two debilitating Europe's industrial powers, Britain, France and Germany in particular, the decline of the Soviet Union as disempowered citizens became disillusioned with their role as slaves of the state and became unproductive and disengaged with national life. At the same time the rise of the United States as an economic and political superpower dangerously destabilised the balance of power.

In the years following World War Two, the U.S.A. was the world’s only exporter of crude oil and petroleum products. This freedom from international obligations supported the US economy, helped the US dollar emerge as the main reserve currency and gave the American government the independence to pursue its geopolitical goals without considering the effect on diplomatic relations with allies and rivals. Up to 1970 and a little beyond, the U.S.A. always maintained a trade balance with the rest of the world.

From a Gold-Based Monetary System to the Petrodollar System

A dramatic change took place in the U.S. economy in the early 1970s. First, due to massive increases in demand and the drying up of Texas oilfields the U.S.A. moved from being an net oil exporter to a net oil importer, then as the first stirrings of globalisation stirred and third would counties began to industrialise, businesses began to realise bigger profits could be made by switching manufacturing to low labour cost environments and selling in the affluent economies of the developed world. Thus the U.S.A., the world's largest consumer market became a net importer of consumer goods. During those years, under the presidency of Richard Nixon, the country finally abandoned the gold standard.

Economics academics had figured out (wrongly as it happens) that now the US dollar had emerged as the dominant reserve currency the government could keep the economy strong by selling money. With the bulk of cross border transactions (particularly oil, by far the biggest traded commodity, being conducted in US dollars, the position as the dominant economy looked unassailable.

Former U.S. Senator Ron Paul explained the Petrodollar system well:

“understanding the Petrodollar system and the forces affecting it, is the best way to predict when the U.S. Dollar will collapse.” The origins of the petrodollar system go back to the Bretton Woods system, the 1944 post-war agreement, which made the U.S. Dollar the official reserve currency.

From then on, only the U.S. Dollar would be convertible into gold at a fixed rate of USD 35 per ounce. This also meant that only the U.S. was able to change the price of gold and, in turn, it committed to maintaining the value of the Dollar by buying and selling unlimited quantities of gold, at the agreed upon rate of USD 35 per ounce.

In 1945, the U.S. Treasury held 17,848 metric tons of fine gold, which at the time represented around 63% of official global gold reserves. The gold-backed Dollar offered the world a reliable and stable reserve currency. However, cracks in the Bretton Woods system began to emerge, as US export surpluses began to drop after 1960.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations were rather big on money printing, be it to finance the space race, or to spend on domestic social programs. A significant burden on the U.S. budget were also the wars fought in Korea and Vietnam, which had to be paid for by resorting to the usual war funding mechanisms, i.e. by borrowing money.

Thus, the country began to live on credit and banks worldwide were flooded with US dollars. These dollars represented gold claims on the United States though. In 1971, the US “temporarily” suspended convertibility of the Dollar into gold, and announced that the dollar would be devalued to USD 38.00 per ounce.

So with the dollar being de facto the only ignificant global currency (the UK pound and the Swiss Franc were also used for international trade but only within specialised economic sectors,) the world was running on fiat money, the value of which could be determined by the government that issued that paper money. This situation seemed to work adequately for a while but eventually a disastrous downward spiral gradually began to gether momentum as successive US governments yielded to the temptation to print money for the funding of welfare benefits (a system of buying the votes of poor voters), but it has ultimately affected the entire global economy. The birth of the Petrodollar contained the seeds of its downfall.

The definition of a petrodollar is a US dollar that is paid to an oil producing country for oil purchased by an oil importing nation.

The gap between US oil consumption and production began to expand in the late 1960s, making the U.S. dependent on oil imports. While that led to the U.S. Dollar being established as the world’s premier reserve currency, it also contributed to the country’s burgeoning foreign debt. The oil embargo, imposed by the Saudi Arabia led OPEC nations during 1973-74, as a reprisal for US support of Israel's Yom Kippur War was a major hit that exposed the vulnerability of the U.S. economy.

1973 was a big year for oil: the full effect of President Nixon's abandonment of the US government guaranteeing to convert paper dollars to physical gold began to kick in. The Dollar had become nothing more than paper currency and the US Treasury and Federal Reserve were free to expand the money supply expansion without restraint. The main problem for Washington lay in finding a way to persuade other countries to buy US Bonds (debt). Saudi Arabia, by far the world's biggest oil producer, was the to this project's success.

Return to contents table



More Mega-Banks Join The Anti-Dollar Alliance

by Phil T Looker, 25 August 2016

Just yesterday we learned of a consortium of Japanese banks had which had agreed to implement new financial technology for settling international financial transactions. That in itself represents a huge step towards abandonment of the petrodollar system that has dominated world trade since 1947 and enabled the USA to remain the dominant economic power. Right now, most international financial transactions must pass through the US banking system’s network of correspondent accounts. London may be the global capital for currency trading, but the fact that international trades are settled inm US Dollars, the defacto global currency, gives the US government an incredible amount of power. And as we have seen over the past few decades they have not been shy about using and abusing that power.

It seems the Japanese Banks are fed up of US abuse of power. They are not the first and will not be the last.

The move to replace the US Dollar as the reserve curency, led by Russia, china and Iran, has been gathering momentum for some years but passed a major milestone in 2014 when the administration of President - God - King Barack Hussein Obama imposed a $9 billion penalty on French bank BNP Paribas for doing business with countries that the US doesn’t like– namely Cuba and Iran.

BNP had to pay up. A French bank paid $9 billion because they violated US law in transactions that were conducted outside the USA and did not involve US owned or headquartered companies. And the threat that forced BNP Paribas to comply with US bullying was that if they didn’t pay, the US government threatened to kick them out of the US banking system.

$9 billion is a lot of money even to a bank. But being kicked out of the US banking system would have been totally crippling. Big international banks in particular cannot function if they don’t have access to the US banking system.

It didn’t matter that this French bank wasn’t violating any French laws. Nor did it matter that only months later the President of the United States inked a sweetheart nuclear deal with Iran and flew down to Cuba to attend a baseball game with his new BFFs. Similar injustices were inflicted on HSBC and Barclays, the American government effectively telling the world "We Are The Law."

As long as the US dollar is the world’s dominant reserve currency, major banks must able to clear and settle US dollar transactions if they expect to remain in business. This means having access to the US banking system… the gatekeeper of the US dollar. But having watched BNP Paribas get blackmailed into paying an extortionate and entirely unjustified $9 billion fine to the US government having done nothing to deserve the punishment other than carry on its legitimate business, the rest of the world’s mega-banks knew instantly that their heads could be next ones on the chopping block.

So they looked at contingency plans. China had already formulated plans for its own international payments system, as had Russia. Their systems were based on developing bilateral trade deals using digital technology to to settle cross - border transactions in the currency of the vendor nation or a mutually agreed currency. This proved the US Dollar could be cut out of the loop. And the emerging Bitcoin digital currency, which uses a technology named Blockchain, provided a suitable technology for doing it.

Instead of passing funds through the US banking system’s costly and inefficient network of correspondent accounts, blockchain technology provides an easy way for banks to send payments directly to one another.

Blockchain may be the factor that neutralizes the US government’s domination of the global financial system. And as it becomes more obvious that the US political and finncial establishments are trying to rig the electoral process and ensure "Crooked Hillary" Clinton, a know liar, fraudster and crony capitalist attains the presidency, things are moving surprisingly quickly.

Today, four of the world’s largest banks announced a joint venture to create a new financial settlement protocol built on blockchain technology. Germany's troubled Deutsche Bank, UBS from Switzerland, Spanish banking giant Santander and Bank of New York Mellon have joined together to launch what they’re naming the very un-sexy “utility settlement coin”. If these mega-banks, and any others which join the system, can hit their milestones, they’ll launch commercially in eighteen months.

Like Ripple, Setl, Monetas, and several other competing technologies, all of which are based on blockchain, Utility Settlement Coin has the potential to end the reliance on the US banking system for cross-border payments and financial transactions. Banks will be able to send payments to one another directly without having to transit through the Wall Street financial toll plaza. (Global consulting firm Oliver Wyman estimates that the cost of clearing and settling international financial transactions at up to $80 billion annually.)

This has enormous implications for the US economy. The Federal Reserve has already warned that financial technology could pose stability risks to the US financial system. If foreign banks are able to transact directly with one another without having to go through the US banking system, then why would they need to park trillions of dollars in the United States?

Adoption of this technology could cause a gigantic vacuum of deposits out of the US banking system. And the US government would have fewer foreign buyers to buy its bonds and thus underwrite the ever-expanding debt that funds the crippled elephant that is the US economy.

RELATED POSTS: Petrodollar imminent collapse
Petrodollar, Obama and Russia head to head
Russia, Ukraine and the future of the petrodollar
How Saddam won the long war
American dollar being dumped as reserve currency
China wants a new currency
Currency wars omnibus
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]



The Destabilizing Consequences Of Globalization

 

The ruling elites and corporate controlled mainstream meadia have called it the new "New Normal" but to discuss the global economy without reference to the accelerating dependence on debt of governments in the developed world, and by extension the amount of control the banks who hold that debt can exercise over policy and eonomic planning is dishonest.

Terms like capitalism and collectivism are as unhelpful as labels like neocon and neoliberal or right and left when we try to analyse what has gone so badly wrong in the world. Globalization is nothing to do with either old or new conservatism and liberalism, more accurate terms for the result of the finance industry led push to lower regulatory barriers to trade and credit in overseas markets is corporatism. The narrative used to sell globalisation to the masses is that global trade lowers costs and offers more opportunities for capital to earn profits. Trade, we are told, makes us all more prosperous. This of course is not true, trade made merchants prosperous in the past, now it makes corporate business more prosperous. One person's (or corporation's) profit is anothers loss.

This expansion of debt driven trade in developing markets may temporarily create more employment opportunities for people previously bypassed by the global economy but in the long run the constant quest to increase profit by introducing new, more efficient technology (progress) ultimately exerts downward pressure on the earnings of the low paid, eventually forcing many into poverty or soul - destroying dependence on state benefits .

Though 'free trade' is often promoted as a boon for buyers and sellers, the reality of trade is it will rarely be 'free' in the sense of equal participants in the market trading for mutual benefit. Rather, “free trade” is the public relations banner for the globalization of credit and the imposition of standards and regulations on small economies that render their goods prohibitively expensive in the markets of the larger economies, while forcing governments of small nations to open their markets to the big boys. Thus we see the most obvious way in which free trade benefits the wealthy and powerful, the global corporations that have the backing of great nations, rather than the impoverished impoverished, often agrarian economies of the tird world.



Financialization and mobile capital exacerbate global imbalances of power and wealth.

We think of 'trade' in terms of goods being shipped from one nation to another to exploit what 18th century economist David Ricardo termed comparative advantage: nations export whatever they produced efficiently and import that which they did not produce efficiently.

While Ricardo’s concept of free trade is intuitively appealing because it is win-win for importer and exporter, it does not take account of financialization and the mobility of capital. In a world dominated by mobile capital, an efficient financial center (such as 'Wall Street' in New York or 'The City' of London) can be the comparative advantage that confers a competitive edge. The mobility of capital completely alters the 18th century view of free trade.

*********************

What do we mean by mobile capital? Capital--cash, credit and the intangible capital of expertise--moves freely around the globe seeking the highest possible return. Globalization is the ultimate expression of capital’s prime directive: expand profits by seeking the highest available return on capital invested anywhere on the planet.

In today's world, trade cannot be coherently measured as goods moving between nations, as capital from the importing nation often owns the productive assets in the exporting nation. If Apple owns a factory (or joint venture) in China and collects virtually all the profits from the iGadgets produced there, this reality cannot be captured by the simple trade model described by Ricardo.

Trying to account for trade in the 18th century manner of goods shipped between nations is nonsensical when components come from a number of nations and profits flow not to the nation of origin but to the owners of capital.

Based on the antiquated model of trade between nations, the Apple iGadget creates a $200 trade deficit between the U.S. and China when it lands on an American dock. But this doesn’t account for the fact that components for the device were manufactured in five different nations, or that the majority of the value of the device is in the intellectual capital: the software, the interface and the design.

Once these factors are considered, it’s been calculated that as little as $10 of the value of every Apple product actually ends up in the Chinese economy. Virtually all the profit flows to Apple in Cupertino, California, not to joint venture partners in China or the workers who assembled the components in China.

Expanding profits by moving production to locales with lower labor costs is known as labor arbitrage. Arbitrage is the process of exploiting the difference in prices of labor, currencies, goods, services, assets, interest rates or credit.

In today's globalized version of "free trade," mobile capital can arbitrage the varying costs of labor, currencies, interest rates, taxes, environmental regulations and political favors by shifting capital between nations.

In the global economy, trade is not conducted between equals; those with access to the unlimited credit of financialization can outbid domestic capital for assets, labor and political favors.

The mobility and scale of capital give it outsized influence in small, credit-starved local markets.

Mobile capital, with its essentially unlimited line of credit, can overwhelm the local political system, buying favors and cutting deals to limit costs and competition. Local elites are soon co-opted, and people starved for cash income are easily recruited as labor.

Local assets--priced for the local economy where credit and cash are both limited--are snapped up on the cheap by global capital, and sold for immense profits.

Credit--scarce in traditional self-sufficient economies--offers maximum leverage to global capital, which can borrow money in distant markets at low costs and use the cash to outbid local buyers to snap up local resources that are still cheap compared to the resources in other globalized markets.

The influx of credit also fuels a destabilizing explosion of credit-based consumption in the local economy, causing people with little experience with credit to become over-indebted.

As the over-indebted default, their land and other possessions are confiscated by offshore lenders, further impoverishing the local populace and enriching global capital.

Where is the "free trade" in a world in which the comparative advantage is held by mobile capital? And what gives mobile capital its essentially unlimited leverage?

Central banks, which issue nearly-free money to banks which funnel the cash to corporations and financiers, who can then roam the world snapping up assets and arbitraging global imbalances with low-interest money.

There's nothing remotely "free" about trade based on capital flows generated by central bank liquidity.

This mobility of capital is an enormous benefit to the owners of the capital, but it creates extraordinary instability for those who are not mobile. When mobile capital encounters anything that reduces profits--higher taxes and rising labor costs, competition or restrictive regulations--it closes factories and fires workers in that locale and shifts to another locale with greater opportunities for high returns.

The workers left behind have limited means to replace the lost wages, and the local state often has few resources to repair any damage left by the exploitation of resources. The advantage of mobility is reserved for capital, and to the relatively limited cohort of workers who can immigrate to other nations to find work.

This illustrates two key characteristics of financialized globalization: perpetual instability and a never-ending cycle of boom and bust as capital sparks rapid development in one locale and then moves elsewhere once profits decline.

The scale of global capital is difficult to grasp; trillions of central bank-issued dollars, euros, yen and renminbi are sloshing around the global economy, seeking low-risk profits.

Capital has no loyalty to anything but its own expansion, and the damage it leaves in its wake is of no concern to the owners of capital.

There are even less visible consequences to the globalization of markets, capital and labor. Once goods and services are priced globally, local supply and demand no longer set the local price. As a result, measuring inflation and deflation locally is meaningless in a globalized economy.

This globalization of price--for goods, services, credit and currencies--continually creates imbalances that fuel a perpetual instability that gradually impoverishes every sector other than global capital, which being mobile, can exploit the imbalances for its own profit.

Who benefits over the longer term from the permanent instability and boom-and-bust cycles of this arrangement? Only those close to the credit spigots of central banks.

This essay was drawn from my new book, Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform, which Gordon T. Long and I discuss in a new 34-minute YouTube program.



Return to contents table



The Fascinating Story Of How The Petrodollar Was Born And Lived In Secrecy For Over 40 Years

For decades, the story of Saudi Arabia recycling petrodollars, i.e., funding the US deficit by buying US Treasuries with proceeds of its crude oil sales (mostly to the US), while the US sweetened the deal by providing the Saudis with military equipment and supplies, remained entirely in the conspiracy realm, with no confirmation or official statement from the US Treasury department.

Now, that particular "theory" becomes the latest fact, thanks to a fascinating story by Bloomberg which gives the background and details of secret meeting between then-US Treasury secretary William Simon and his deputy, Gerry Parsky, and members of the Saudi ruling elite, and lays out the history of how the petrodollar was born.

Here is the background:

It was July 1974. A steady predawn drizzle had given way to overcast skies when William Simon, newly appointed U.S. Treasury secretary, and his deputy, Gerry Parsky, stepped onto an 8 a.m. flight from Andrews Air Force Base. On board, the mood was tense. That year, the oil crisis had hit home. An embargo by OPEC’s Arab nations—payback for U.S. military aid to the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War—quadrupled oil prices. Inflation soared, the stock market crashed, and the U.S. economy was in a tailspin.
 
Officially, Simon’s two-week trip was billed as a tour of economic diplomacy across Europe and the Middle East, full of the customary meet-and-greets and evening banquets. But the real mission, kept in strict confidence within President Richard Nixon’s inner circle, would take place during a four-day layover in the coastal city of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
 
The goal: neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth. And according to Parsky, Nixon made clear there was simply no coming back empty-handed. Failure would not only jeopardize America’s financial health but could also give the Soviet Union an opening to make further inroads into the Arab world.
 
It “wasn’t a question of whether it could be done or it couldn’t be done,” said Parsky, 73, one of the few officials with Simon during the Saudi talks

As noted above, the framework of the required deal was simple: the U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.

The man leading the US negotiation, US Treasury Secretary William Simon, had just done a stint as Nixon’s energy czar, and "seemed ill-suited for such delicate diplomacy. Before being tapped by Nixon, the chain-smoking New Jersey native ran the vaunted Treasuries desk at Salomon Brothers. To career bureaucrats, the brash Wall Street bond trader—who once compared himself to Genghis Khan—had a temper and an outsize ego that was painfully out of step in Washington. Just a week before setting foot in Saudi Arabia, Simon publicly lambasted the Shah of Iran, a close regional ally at the time, calling him a “nut.”

But Simon, better than anyone else, understood the appeal of U.S. government debt and how to sell the Saudis on the idea that America was the safest place to park their petrodollars. With that knowledge, the administration hatched an unprecedented do-or-die plan that would come to influence just about every aspect of U.S.-Saudi relations over the next four decades (Simon died in 2000 at the age of 72).

In the beginning it wasn't easy: "it took several discreet follow-up meetings to iron out all the details, Parsky said."

But at the end of months of negotiations, Bloomberg writes, there remained one small, yet crucial, catch: King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud demanded the country’s Treasury purchases stay “strictly secret,” according to a diplomatic cable obtained by Bloomberg from the National Archives database."

The secret remains... until May 16 when the US Treasury for the first time ever revealed the full extent of Saudi TSY holdings.

 

Bloomberg adds that with a handful of Treasury and Federal Reserve officials, the secret was kept for more than four decades—until now. "In response to a Freedom-of-Information-Act request submitted by Bloomberg News, the Treasury broke out Saudi Arabia’s holdings for the first time this month after “concluding that it was consistent with transparency and the law to disclose the data,” according to spokeswoman Whitney Smith. The $117 billion trove makes the kingdom one of America’s largest foreign creditors."

The TIC data released later that day confirmed the FOIA response.

To be sure, as we commented in mid-May, it is very likely that the Treasury report is incomplete, and that the Saudis also own hundreds of billions in Treasurys held in custody with offshore trading centers such as Euroclear. After all, the current tally represents just 20 percent of its $587 billion of foreign reserves, well below the two-thirds that central banks typically keep in dollar assets

What’s more, the commitment to the decades-old policy of “interdependence” between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which arose from Simon’s debt deal and ultimately bound together two nations that share few common values, is showing signs of fraying. America has taken tentative steps toward a rapprochement with Iran, highlighted by President Barack Obama’s landmark nuclear deal last year. The U.S. shale boom has also made America far less reliant on Saudi oil.

Needless to say, the real total notional amount of Saudi holdings will eventually become known, especially if the middle-eastern nation follows through with its threat of liquidating some or all of them.  What is more notable, however, is that with the first disclosure of this data since the birth of the petrodollar, something appears to have changed:

What’s more, the commitment to the decades-old policy of “interdependence” between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which arose from Simon’s debt deal and ultimately bound together two nations that share few common values, is showing signs of fraying. America has taken tentative steps toward a rapprochement with Iran, highlighted by President Barack Obama’s landmark nuclear deal last year. The U.S. shale boom has also made America far less reliant on Saudi oil.
 
“Buying bonds and all that was a strategy to recycle petrodollars back into the U.S.,” said David Ottaway, a Middle East fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington. But politically, “it’s always been an ambiguous, constrained relationship.”

One thing that certainly changed is that in a world where central banks are ravenously buying up each others' (and their own) debt, the need for Petrodollar recyclers such as Saudi Arabia is no longer there. But that was not always the case:

[B]ack in 1974, forging that relationship (and the secrecy that it required) was a no-brainer, according to Parsky, who is now chairman of Aurora Capital Group, a private equity firm in Los Angeles. Many of America’s allies, including the U.K. and Japan, were also deeply dependent on Saudi oil and quietly vying to get the kingdom to reinvest money back into their own economies.
 
"Everyone—in the U.S., France, Britain, Japan—was trying to get their fingers in the Saudis’ pockets,” said Gordon S. Brown, an economic officer with the State Department at the U.S. embassy in Riyadh from 1976 to 1978. For the Saudis, politics played a big role in their insistence that all Treasury investments remain anonymous.

America's reliance on Saudi Arabia to fund its deficit - and obtain a cheap price for oil - meant that the kingdom would be granted Platinum status in every form of interaction with the US.

Tensions still flared 10 months after the Yom Kippur War, and throughout the Arab world, there was plenty of animosity toward the U.S. for its support of Israel. According to diplomatic cables, King Faisal’s biggest fear was the perception Saudi oil money would, “directly or indirectly,” end up in the hands of its biggest enemy in the form of additional U.S. assistance.
 
Treasury officials solved the dilemma by letting the Saudis in through the back door. In the first of many special arrangements, the U.S. allowed Saudi Arabia to bypass the normal competitive bidding process for buying Treasuries by creating “add-ons.” Those sales, which were excluded from the official auction totals, hid all traces of Saudi Arabia’s presence in the U.S. government debt market.
 
“When I arrived at the embassy, I was told by people there that this is Treasury’s business,” Brown said. “It was all handled very privately.”
 
* * *
Another exception was carved out for Saudi Arabia when the Treasury started releasing monthly country-by-country breakdowns of U.S. debt ownership. Instead of disclosing Saudi Arabia’s holdings, the Treasury grouped them with 14 other nations, such as Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Nigeria, under the generic heading “oil exporters”—a practice that continued for 41 years.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continued buying: by 1977, Saudi Arabia had accumulated about 20 percent of all Treasuries held abroad, according to The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets by Columbia University’s David Spiro.

The deal led to assorted headaches: "an internal memo, dated October 1976, detailed how the U.S. inadvertently raised far more than the $800 million it intended to borrow at auction. At the time, two unidentified central banks used add-ons to buy an additional $400 million of Treasuries each. In the end, one bank was awarded its portion a day late to keep the U.S. from exceeding the limit.

Most of these maneuvers and hiccups were swept under the rug, and top Treasury officials went to great lengths to preserve the status quo and protect their Middle East allies as scrutiny of America’s biggest creditors increased.
 
Over the years, the Treasury repeatedly turned to the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act of 1976—which shields individuals in countries where Treasuries are narrowly held—as its first line of defense.
 
The strategy continued even after the Government Accountability Office, in a 1979 investigation, found “no statistical or legal basis” for the blackout. The GAO didn’t have power to force the Treasury to turn over the data, but it concluded the U.S. “made special commitments of financial confidentiality to Saudi Arabia” and possibly other OPEC nations.
 
Simon, who had by then returned to Wall Street, acknowledged in congressional testimony that “regional reporting was the only way in which Saudi Arabia would agree” to invest using the add-on system.

Ultimately, Saudi dominance in the US Treasury market meant they were untouchable. "It was clear the Treasury people weren’t going to cooperate at all,” said Stephen McSpadden, a former counsel to the congressional subcommittee that pressed for the GAO inquiries. “I’d been at the subcommittee for 17 years, and I’d never seen anything like that."

Today, Parsky says the secret arrangement with the Saudis should have been dismantled years ago and was surprised the Treasury kept it in place for so long. But even so, he has no regrets. Doing the deal “was a positive for America”, he says cited by Bloomberg.

And with that the story of how the Petrodollar was born is now public information, something which Saudi Arabia may not be too happy with. For the sake of the US, it better have its ducks in order because the release of this story simply means that the US Treasury is confident it will no longer have a strategic need for its long-time Saudi partner. The Fed, which has implicitly stepped into the Saudi role, better not disappoint.



Return to contents table




Racist Organisation BLM Leader Has Financial Links To Soros’ Open Society Institute

BlackLivesMatter leader DeRay Mckesson may claim to b a civil rights and equalities campaigner leading a grassroots revolution for racial and economic justice, but like many professional Social Justice Warriors he has close connections with the privileged and wealthy elite. Mckesson lives (apparently rent free) in a home owned by philanthropists James and Robin Wood in Baltimore, Maryland.

This is the address he gave when declaring his residency on his campaign committee registration form for his failed attempt to be elected Baltimore's mayoral nominee in the city’s Democratic primary earlier this year. The Woods have owned the home since 1996 and are substantial donors to the Baltimore chapter of George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Robin was made a board member of the far-left non-profit back in 2008, according to the OSI’s website.

The OSI site informs us Jimmy relocated to his home city on becoming director of the orthopedic department at Sinai Hospital. Five years ago he was appointed chief of orthopedics at Harbor Hospital and his wife threw herself into social justice activism with the Community Law Center in Baltimore. She has also been a board member for Associated Black Charities, Safe and Sound, the Baltimore School for the Arts and the Baltimore Community Foundation. In 2008, Robin joined the OSI-Baltimore board of directors. She is now attending the University Of Maryland School of Law.

Soros groups have had several connections to #BlackLivesMatter organizers and activists.

Politico reveals the Soros backed group Democracy Alliance do supported a number of organizations dedicated to creating inter - racial tensions in the USA which have been identified ass working with the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

Internal documents from Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), a group organizing the protests in Ferguson after the death of Michael Brown, showed activists being paid.

Infowars reported:

"…MORE was one of the groups that received a share of the $33 million invested into the #BlackLivesMatter movement by billionaire George Soros."

To add insult to injury for Baltmore residents, the Balimore Sun reported this week that professional toroublemaker Mckesson is making a handsome salary as the Baltimore schools district’s chief of human capital. In this new role, which puts him in an ideal position to radicalise young blacks and increase racial tension, Mckesson is earning a salary of $165,000 and manages a budget of $4 million.

After being appointed last month, Mckesson said he was ready to get to work.

"At its core, this role is about finding great people, matching them to the right role, and helping them to develop and experience careers in the service of our kids,” he said. “I am excited to return to city schools … and to continue doing the work to ensure that every child in Baltimore City receives a world-class education."

Fine words, but what kind of education do we expect white children in Baltimore will get from a department run by a racist, black supremancist, agitator who evidently blieves White Lives Do Not Matter.

Return to contents table



So, You Thought Slavery Was Dead? Think Again

by Tyler Durden - 2:00AM

Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

Nearly 46 million human beings are subject to slavery, a new report released this week concluded. According to the third annual Global Slavery Index, which gathers and analyzes surveys conducted by Gallup, the number of people forced into “modern slavery,” or “human trafficking, forced labour, debt bondage, forced or servile marriage or commercial sexual exploitation,” rose from 35.8 million to 45.8 million since 2014 — a 28 percent increase.

The Global Slavery Index is a project of Walk Free, an Australian human rights organization dedicated to ending modern slavery, which researchers caution does not mean traditional slavery, in which “people were held in bondage as legal property.

This year, the researchers for the index analyzed survey responses from 42,000 respondents in 53 languages and 167 countries, though they noted gathering such information is “a difficult undertaking due to the hidden nature of this crime and low levels of victim identification.”

Even so, Andrew Forrest, the founder of Walk Free, suspected the 28 percent increase from 2014 to 2016 was “due to better data collection, although he feared the situation was getting worse with global displacement and migration increasing vulnerability to all forms of slavery,” Reuters reported.

The new analysis highlights the persistence of slavery in modern society, cataloguing the worst-offending nations and noting that instances of modern slavery occurred in all 167 countries included in the study.

According to the report, 58 percent of individuals forced into modern slavery were located in five countries: India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan. Those nations had the highest “absolute” number of slaves — India was found to have over 18 million slaves, and China, which took second place, had over 3 million.

The report also listed nations with the highest proportions of slaves relative to their total populations: North Korea, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, India, and Qatar.

With over 1.1 million slaves in a nation of just over 25 million, North Korea had the highest proportion of victims, with 4.373 percent of the population subject to servitude. That amounts to roughly 1 in 20 North Korean citizens forced into slavery. As the report explains, in North Korea, “there is pervasive evidence that government-sanctioned forced labour occurs in an extensive system of prison labour camps while North Korean women are subjected to forced marriage and commercial sexual exploitation in China and other neighbouring states.”

The 2016 index further noted other instances of state-sponsored slavery, naming Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Russia, Swaziland, and Vietnam — as well as North Korea — as the worst offenders.

It also criticized North Korea, Iran, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Hong Kong, Central African Republic, Papua New Guinea, Guinea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan for their lack of effort in combating slavery.

Interestingly, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya, all nations subject to U.S. military intervention, tied for sixth place in the list of oppressive countries by proportion to population — totaling several million designated modern slaves among them. But the researchers did not include these nations’ governments when they analyzed efforts to curb slavery, perhaps unintentionally highlighting yet another oppressive force in the contemporary human experience:

“Due to the ongoing conflict and extreme disruption to government function,” they note, “we have not included ratings for Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria or Yemen.”

Critics of the report challenged the statistical methods, arguing the analysts used “flawed methodology by extrapolating on-the-ground surveys in some countries to estimate numbers for other nations.” However, as Reuters reported, “Forrest said a lack of hard data on slavery in the past had held back efforts to tackle this hidden crime and it was important to draw a ‘sand in the line’ measurement to drive action.” He challenged critics to produce an alternative.

“Without measurement you don’t have effective management and there’s no way to lead the world away from slavery,” he said.

Discussing options for eradicating modern slavery, Forrest, an Australian mining billionaire and philanthropist, singled out businesses that fail to scrutinize slavery in the production of their products.Businesses that don’t actively look for forced labour within their supply chains are standing on a burning platform. Business leaders who refuse to look into the realities of their own supply chains are misguided and irresponsible,” he said. As Reuters noted, the “2016 index again found Asia, which provides low-skilled labor in global supply chains producing clothing, food and technology, accounted for two-thirds of the people in slavery.”

Calling on leaders in government and civil society (as well as business), to work harder in eradicating modern slavery, Forrest ultimately waxed optimistic.

“Through our responsible use of power, strength of conviction, determination and collective will, we all can lead the world to end slavery,” he said.



HRH of Aquitaine 2:27AM

I have been aware of modern day slavery for a number of years. Quite possibly one of the most shocking stories I have read (about 2 years ago) was that in the African country of Mauritania it is still legal to inherit slaves. Do we hear about this in the US? Only if you read a number of new sites on a regular basis. Of course none of this is discussed or shown in the MSM or taught in the common-core schools of the USSA.

Edit: I did find this aricle on CNN. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/category/mauritania-slaverys-l...

Actually this site has been around for a number of years and estimates the number of slaves to be 46 million. http://www.globalslaveryindex.org

Fudomyo HRH of Aquitaine 6:32AM

The sex slave market for Eastern European women is thriving across Asia. The Russian mafia controls a large part of the business. They hold the girl's passports and have a gun at the heads of their relatives back home, so the girls can't escape. They find the top crime boss in the areas they move into and brutally execute them. When they took over in Thailand they whacked a couple of top bosses in Pat Pong. Same in Tokyo. They tossed a Yakuza boss off a roof in the center of Roppongi on a Saturday night to show they meant business. Singapore Orchard Road was one of the few places they couldn't get a foothold, but almost everywhere else they operate with impunity.  

 

Singapore gets a large influx of the secondary Thai ladyboy market once the kids are too old for the legions of German and British pedophile sex tourists in South Thailand and Vietnam. Nevermind all the really dark shit that goes on in KL, Jakarta, and Manila. Pure fear and loathing.

 

The depth of human depravity knows no limits.



johnnycanuck Fudomyo 9 mins ago

A bit of study on 'Who is the Russian Mafia?' is interesting and quite revealing.

Did some research after the Ukrainian (Nuland) coup took place in an attempt to understand who the Ukie Oligarchs are and their history. Amazing how many had ties of one sort or another with Russian mafia figures. And the big boss is?

Semion Mogilevich. Like many of his associates in Ukraine, he has a history of moving about within a select circle of countries which include Russia, Israel, Ukraine and usually a European country of their liking. Hungary was this fellows choice when it was useful.



JamaicaJim 6:57AM

"So, You Thought Slavery Was Dead? Think Again"

Never thought slavery WAS dead.....

what gave youse that idea?

graspAU 7:22AM

“Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal - that there is no human relation between master and slave.”
-Leo Tolstoy

"Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money (deposits), and with the flick of the pen, they will create enough money, to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."
- Sir Josiah Stamp, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920´s, the second richest man in Britain)

“While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by our iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”
-Horace Greely -1872, in writing his opinion of the National Banking Act. Greely served a short term in the US House of Representatives (NY 1848-1849). He was editor of the New York Tribune, and ran for president in the new liberal Republican party in 1872. He was the only presidential candidate to ever die during the electoral process. He died before the electoral votes were cast. Sited in US Senate Doc. 23, 76th Congress, 1st Session – January 24, 1939

“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.”
-John Adams

"Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves."
–Norm Franz, Money and Wealth in the New Millennium

When the end result of all our technology, learning and philosophy is a failure to develop liberty and fulfillment or worse, the complete and utter intransience of a social system that has all the hallmarks of slavery being perpetuated forever, should we not question whether there is a source point that controls humanity?”.
-Unknown – Zerohedge




How George Soros Singlehandedly Created The European Refugee Crisis - And Why

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-european-refugee-crisis-and-why

http://www.garretgalland.com/passing-parade/how-george-soros-singlehandedly-created-the-european-refugee-crisisand-why/



How George Soros Singlehandedly Created the European Refugee Crisis - And Why

George Soros is trading again.

The 85-year-old political activist and philanthropist hit the headlines post-Brexit saying the event had “unleashed” a financial-market crisis.

Well, the crisis hasn’t hit Soros just yet.

He was once again on the right side of the trade, taking a short position in troubled Deutsche Bank and betting against the S&P via a 2.1-million-share put option on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF.

More interestingly, Soros recently took out a $264 million position in Barrick Gold, whose share price has jumped over 14% since Brexit. Along with this trade, Soros has sold his positions in many of his traditional holdings.

Soros had recently announced he was coming out of retirement, again.

First retiring in 2000, the only other time Soros has publicly re-entered the markets was in 2007, when he placed a number of bearish bets on US housing and ultimately made a profit of over $1 billion from the trades.

Since the 1980s, Soros has actively been pursuing a globalist agenda; he advances this agenda through his Open Society Foundations (OSF).

What is this globalist agenda, and where does it come from?

The Humble Beginnings

The globalist seed was sowed for young George by his father, Tivadar, a Jewish lawyer who was a strong proponent of Esperanto. Esperanto is a language created in 1887 by L.L. Zamenhof, a Polish eye doctor, for the purpose of “transcending national borders” and “overcoming the natural indifference of mankind.”

Tivadar taught young George Esperanto and forced him to speak it at home. In 1936, as Hitler was hosting the Olympics in Berlin, Tivadar changed the family name from Schwartz to Soros, an Esperanto word meaning “will soar.”

George Soros, who was born and raised in Budapest, Hungary, benefited greatly from his father’s decision.

Allegedly, in 1944, 14-year-old George Soros went to work for the invading Nazis. It is said that until the end of the war in 1945, he worked with a government official, helping him confiscate property from the local Jewish population.

In an 1998 interview with 60 Minutes, Soros described the year of German occupation as “the happiest time in my life.”

[ ... ]



His Latest Success: the European Refugee Crisis

Soros’s agenda is fundamentally about the destruction of national borders. This has recently been shown very clearly with his funding of the European refugee crisis.

The refugee crisis has been blamed on the civil war currently raging in Syria. But did you ever wonder how all these people suddenly knew Europe would open its gates and let them in?

The refugee crisis is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It coincided with OSF donating money to the US-based Migration Policy Institute and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, both Soros-sponsored organizations. Both groups advocate the resettlement of third-world Muslims into Europe.

In 2015, a Sky News reporter found “Migrant Handbooks” on the Greek island of Lesbos. It was later revealed that the handbooks, which are written in Arabic, had been given to refugees before crossing the Mediterranean by a group called “Welcome to the EU.”

Welcome to the EU is funded by—you guessed it—the Open Society Foundations.

Soros has not only backed groups that advocate the resettlement of third-world migrants into Europe, he in fact is the architect of the “Merkel Plan.”

The Merkel Plan was created by the European Stability Initiative whose chairman Gerald Knaus is a senior fellow at none other than the Open Society Foundations.

The plan proposes that Germany should grant asylum to 500,000 Syrian refugees. It also states that Germany, along with other European nations, should agree to help Turkey, a country that’s 98% Muslim, gain visa-free travel within the EU starting in 2016.

Political Discourse

The refugee crisis has raised huge concern in European countries like Hungary.

In response to 7,000 migrants entering Hungarian territory per day in 2015, the Hungarian government reestablished border control in order to keep the hordes of refugees from entering the country.

Of course this did not go down well with Soros and his close allies, the Clintons.

Bill Clinton has since come out and accused both Poland and Hungary of thinking “democracy is too much trouble” and wanting to have a “Putin-like authoritarian dictatorship.”

Seeing through Clinton’s comments, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán responded by saying, “The remarks made about Hungary and Poland … have a political dimension. These are not accidental slips of the tongue. And these slips or remarks have been multiplying since we are living in the era of the migrant crisis. And we all know that behind the leaders of the Democratic Party, we have to see George Soros.”

He went on to say that “although the mouth belongs to Clinton, the voice belongs to Soros.”

Soros has since said of Orbán’s policy toward the migrants: “His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

It’s hard to imagine that he could be any clearer in his globalist intentions.

The Profit Motive

So why is Soros going to such lengths to flood Europe with hordes of third-world Muslims?

We can’t be sure, but it has recently come to light that Soros has taken a large series of “bearish derivative positions” against US stocks. Apparently, he thinks that causing chaos in Europe will spread the contagion to the United States, thus sending US markets spiraling downward.

The destruction of Europe through flooding it with millions of unassimilated Muslims is a direct plan to cause economic and social chaos on the Continent.

Another example of turmoil equaling profit for George Soros, who seems to have his tentacles in most geopolitical events.

We all understand correlation is not causation. However, given Soros’s extraordinary wealth, political connections, and his long track record of seeing and profiting from chaos, he is almost certainly a catalyst for much of the geopolitical turmoil now occurring.

He is intent on destroying national borders and creating a global governance structure with unlimited powers. From his comments directed toward Viktor Orbán, we can see he clearly views national leaders as his juniors, expecting them to become puppets that sell his narrative to the ignorant masses.

Soros sees himself as a missionary carrying out the globalist agenda taught to him by his early mentors. He uses his vast political connections to influence government policy and create crises, both economic and social, to further this agenda.

By all appearances, Soros is conspiring against humanity and is hell-bent on the destruction of Western democracies.

To any rational thinker, some global events just don’t make sense. Why, for example, would Western democracies take in millions of people whose values are completely incompatible with their own?

When we look closely at the agenda being actively promoted by the leading globalist puppet master, George Soros, things become a little clearer.

Want to read more? If you haven’t done so already, sign-up for your free subscription to The Passing Parade from Garret/Galland Research.  It’s a rousing weekly romp on economics and markets, with a dose of politics and other follies. It’s free and you can cancel at any time. Click here now to start subscription today!

Return to contents table



Soros Is Responsible for Europe's Immigration Crisis Says Hungary's Viktor Orban

source: Der Spiegel

Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has made the American billionaire and philanthropist George Soros for the current refugee movements in Europe with responsibility. "This invasion (of migrants) on the one hand steered from the tractor business, on the other hand of those (human) activists who support everything that the nation-states weakens," the right-wing conservative politicians said on state radio.

"This Western way of thinking and this activist network is perhaps the most represented by George Soros", Orbán added. A native of Hungary promotes private equity firm with its foundations worldwide initiatives and groups who work for democracy and human rights. His Open Society Foundation (OSF) supported by Budapest also activists who help refugees.

Hungary until the mid of the month one of the transit countries for the refugees on the Balkan route. Since stand on transfer Orbán fences on the borders with Serbia and Croatia, pull the migrants away from Hungary. Orbán had already driven a sharp xenophobic campaign. The OSF had the hate rhetoric of the Budapest Government and the foreclosure of borders to refugees repeatedly criticized.

Orban has stated many times that he believes groups funded by Mr. Soros “are drawing a living from the immigration crisis”. His Open Society Foundations, which provide endless streams of pro-migration talking heads for news outlets, are a case in point.

The Open Society Institute–Budapest (OSF) has helped activists working with migrants on issues “affecting the safety and well-being of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers”. Despite the return to relative peace and stability seen in Hungary following decisions taken by Mr. Orbán, it has repeatedly condemned his government’s rhetoric and the sealing of borders to migrants. The OSF website explains:

“We believe that migration and asylum policy should be grounded in economic and demographic realities, not driven by temporary political considerations or popular misconceptions. In Europe, many of our civil society partners are raising their voices demanding a common European approach in line with international human rights commitments. We also support legal action aimed at ensuring governments meet their obligations under international law to treat all migrants with dignity, and offer them asylum when circumstances dictate.”

As far as Mr. Orbán is concerned migration policy is in fact being driven by what he calls America’s “naked national and imperial interests”. In the past he has also identified financial self-interest as a motive of Western groups promoting migration.

RELATED POSTS: Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [ It's Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]




Post Trump and Brexit, Predicting The Globalists Next Move

With Britain's Conservative Government pressing ahead with a 'hard Brexit agenda, and the Trump administration setting abou demolishing the expressway to socialism Barac Obama had spent eight years contruction, there is a lot of speculation and precious little hard evidence to indicate where the globalist elite, having seen their ambition for a world government thwarted will go next.

In an article titled 'How Globalists Predict Your Behavior', Brandon Smith of Alt-Media.com described how for the past two or three decades the globalists have used their ability to control informaion and thus manufacture consent for their oligarchical-collectivist agenda and steer dissent and public anger towards groups and organisations that promoted individual liberty, free speech and dissent (or right wing extremists as the globalist propaganda described them.

The use of mass surveillance, filtering of information requests (i.e. web searches), data mining and digital data parsing and statistical analysis of web activity is the most powerful tool ruling elites have ever had at their disposal for gauging and influencing the public mood.

RELATED POSTS: Olympic Disaster. What happened to globalism? Is Europe Waking Up To The Threat Of Globalism Posed by Secret Trade Treaties The Real Rate Of Inflation, USA, UK (Europe’s is off the scale). The Global Economy Is Bankrupt Globalists Like Soros Are Now Blatantly Moving Forward Their Totalitarian World Government Agenda Oh What A Tragedy For Globalists: Here’s what we will miss by being outside the EU Russia Today the only obstacle to God King Obama’s Global Empire France's President Hollande Says ‘Non’ To Obama?s Demand for Corporate Global Oligarchy This Will Make Globalists Understand Why They Should Have Voted For UKIP The Reality Of Globalism - World Trade Has Increased By Less Than 1% Annually In The Last Decade New UN Boss Says Migration To Europe Unstoppable, Politicians Should Ignore Voters New World Order Stopped? Russia Bans Soros Foundation "A Threat To National Security DC Leaks Expose George Soros Manipulating Elections The Soros Page Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [ It's Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]
CREATIVE COMMONS: attrib, no comm, no dervs.
KEYWORDS: news, opinion, dailystirrer,

If you liked this, please give it a boost

Bookmark and Share
Close Window and return to previous URL
RSS News Feeds
RSS Feed From Zero Hedge (Business News)
RSS News feed from Breitbart London

MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE

Menu

Follow Greenteeth on TWITTER...Boggart Abroad ... Daily Stirrer home ... Greenteeth Bites ... Boggart Blog ... Greenteeth Labyrinth ... Author ... Wikinut - Ian R Thorpe ... Gather ... Bubblews ... Authorsden ... Scribd ... Ian Thorpe at Facebook ... Delicious Greenteeth ... Boggart Network News ... Boggart Network News