Police can’t say Skripal & Amesbury cases linked, or that those responsible will be caught

queen-elizabeth-gardens-1080x583
Queen Elizabeth Garden in Salisbury, where the Skripals fed the ducks while
The head of Britain’s counter-terrorism operations, Neil Basu, has said the agency cannot positively link the poisoning in Salisbury, Wiltshire, of former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia to the more recent poisoning of the late Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charlie Rowley in the same town with an as yet unspecified nerve agent. Nor can they guarantee authorities will catch those responsible for the nerve agent poisoning of the Skripals and Dawn Sturgess,

Basu, who heads Counter Terrorism Policing nationally, told residents of Amesbury he would “love to be able to say that we have identified and caught the people responsible and how we are certain there are no traces of nerve agent left anywhere in Wiltshire, but the brutal reality is that I cannot offer you any reassurance or guarantee at this time.”

Sturgess and Charlie Rowley reportedly fell ill after coming into contact with Novichok on June 30, and Sturgess died days later. This is the same nerve agent believed to have poisoned Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March. Public Health England have repeatedly said there is no wider threat to the public arising from the Skripal case.

We can perhaps believe the latter assurance as well respected chemists have confirmed that Novichok, the nerve agent generally agreed to have been used in the bid to assassinate the Skripals would decompose if exposed to the environment for three months. The rest of the official narrative however was always as full of holes as a bagel bakery.

A new development has only added to the confusion:

According to Rob Sloane in The Blogmire.com on 28th March, an article appeared in the Sun, which talked about a 12-year-old boy from Salisbury, Aiden Cooper, who was apparently in a park with his parents, when he saw the Skripals and went over to them to feed the ducks:

“A schoolboy told yesterday how he was caught up in the poison spy drama after assassination target Sergei Skripal gave him bread to feed ducks. Aiden Cooper, 12, was playing in a park with pals when they saw Skripal and daughter Yulia beside a stream. They were handed bread and are among the last people to have had contact with the retired ­Russian military intellig­ence colonel, now fighting for his life.

It is usual when citing The Currant Bun (for U.S. readers that’s rhyming slang,) to have a truckload of salt handy as every other word needs to be taken with a large pinch of the stuff, but in this case not only is there no reason why the people quoted in the article, would make up such stories. In any case, the story was repeated in a number of other outlets (The MirrorThe Mail and Metro for instance) and parts of it at least have been confirmed by police when they were questioned on the story, although they did not volunteer the information in the aftermath of the incident when the media and establishment were focused on blaming The Russians.

The interesting thing about The Mirror, The Mail and Metro pieces is that they are all vague about a quite crucial detail. The Mirror and The Mail both tell us that the incident took place “near the Avon Playground”. And Metro tells us that the incident took place at “Riverside Park”. The Avon Playground mentioned by The Mirror and The Mail is next to the Avon River, and it is also about 50 yards or so from the bench where the Skripals were found (as an aside, this is not the same Avon as runs through Stratford-upon-Avon. Avon is a Celtic word meaning river and there are several river Avons in modern Britain). As for Riverside Park mentioned by Metro, no such named park exists in Salisbury although there is a Queen Elizabeth Garden which is a park on the riverside and is where Dawn Sturgess is alleged to have picked up a syringe part filled with an unknown substance. But the important point is that from the details given in these articles most people would assume that the duck-feeding incident took place in the same park as the bench on which the Skripals were found.

Yet all three of these media outlets are wrong, and in a way that may well be very significant. Turning back to the report in The Sun, we find that it is by far the most detailed of all the reports on the duck incident. In fact, it appeared three days after the others appeared, with The Sun sending a reporter to interview the boy and his parents. From that and from independent reports supplied by people living in Salisbury, we learn that Queen Elizabeth Garden is on the other side of town from locations linked to the Skripal case and the police timeline for the incident does not mention the Russians having been there at all. Yet if police officers managed to contact Aidan cooper’s parents from a photo taken in the park they must have known both he and the Skripals were there.

All this does not by any means prove that Russian agents were not involved in the first poisoning, but it does reveal that a lot of the evidence used to support the government’s accusations was unreliable if not totally fabricated.

So what is going on? Is there any link between the incidents? Do the police or security services have any idea what really happened, let alone who might be responsible? The more we learn about this case the more questions it throws up.

Advertisements

Islam Does Not Do Multiculturalism

Came across this intertesting article from American Thinker reposted on Minds.com. It is authored by Iranian – American pro – democracy activist Amil Imani and is a thorough analysis of the relationship between the Islamic world and the liberal democracies of the west. Imani is scathing about left wing ideologues and their dreams of a global biberal culture as he is about World View Thinkers who believe a global authoritarian government could persuade different cultures to co – exist side by side.

Absolutely no co-existence with Islam

Islam and the West cannot co-exist. I have warned of this many times, and I hope I have not been talking to a wall.

Fellow travelers, there is no “coexistence” in Islam, there is only subjugation or elimination of infidels. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis, and Imamate to the Shiites. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of Satan and infidels.

Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by Islamic fire. This is a fact.

Muslim jihadists live among us. It is only going to get worse. Jihadists consider themselves the army of Allah. They use violence as an instrument of policy. This continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortations to jihadism and war.

For the past twenty years or so, I have been warning to free men and women: Remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand, denounce the fraud of Islam, and do all you can to prevent Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system. Tomorrow will be too late.

READ ALL >>>

 

Police State Britain

BS WB MENKEN D

Authored by Neema Parvini via The Mises Institute,

This article will demonstrate how the United Kingdom has steadily become a police state over the past twenty years, weaponizing its institutions against the people and employing Orwellian techniques to stop the public from seeing the truth. It will demonstrate, contrary to official narratives, that both overall levels of crime and violent crime have been increasing, not decreasing, as the size of the state in the UK has gotten bigger. It will also expose how the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010, deliberately obscured real crime data with estimated crime rates based on survey data as opposed to the real numbers. I will demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion perpetuated by progressive myths, life was much safer in Britain during the era of classical laissez-faire from the 1850s to 1911.

In his 10 years in power from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair passed an astonishing 26,849 laws in total, an average of 2,663 per year or 7.5 a day. The Labour Party continued this madness under Gordon Brown who broke the record in 2008 by passing 2,823 new laws, a 6% increase on even his megalomaniac predecessor. In 2010, Labour’s last year in power before handing over the reigns to the Blairite social radical, David Cameron, there was a 54% surge in privacy cases brought against public bodies, and the Cabinet were refusing freedom of information requests at a rate of 51%. The vast number of new laws under Labour does not count the 2,100 new regulations the EU passed in 2006 alone, which apparently is average for them.

Many of these vast changes under Blair and Brown were in the area of criminal law. By 2008, Labour had created more than 3,600 new offences. Many of these, naturally, were red-tape regulations. To give you an idea:

  • Creating a nuclear explosion
  • Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
  • To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden
  • Disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer
  • Obstructing workers from carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway
  • Offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day
  • Allowing an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre
  • A ship’s captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the International Grain Code on board
  • Scallop fishing without the correct boat
  • Breaking regulation number 10 of the 1998 Apple and Pear Grubbing Up Regulations
  • Selling Polish Potatoes

There are many more. However, there were also some more serious breaches of civil liberty.

One common tactic of the Blair government was to use a moral panic to pass radical new legislation. For example, in 2006, he passed the Terrorism Act that overturned habeas corpus and gave the British police the right to detain anyone for any reason for 90 days. At the time, this got widespread public support because of the recent 7/7 bombings in London. This means that, in the UK, the police can arrest you without you necessarily having committed a crime if they can brand your activities as “terrorist” or “extremist.” Although these laws were ostensibly brought about to combat Islamic terrorism, the ever-expanding definitions of “far right” and “extremist” demonstrate how they can be weaponised against the British people.

Another area in which the Labour government used moral panic cynically to overturn longstanding common law principles was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which they used to eliminate the double jeopardy rule and, as per the MacPherson report, to put an end to colour-blind policing.

Recently there have been an increased number of cases in which the British state has encroached on civil liberties in a near-openly tyrannical way. The Count Dankula case, for example, in which a man was arrested for “hate speech,” then tried and made to pay a fine for telling off-colour jokes about the Nazis on Youtube. Then there was the young woman who was found guilty of being “grossly offensive” for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Instagram account. And, most recently, the political activist Tommy Robinson was arrested and tried in mere hours for recording outside a courtroom. In each of these cases, despite some protests against the legal rulings, the media broadly sided with the courts, citing the technicalities of the law – in the former two cases section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (another Blair special) – and brand anyone who would protest “far right” or “extremist.”

“Gaslighting” is a word from the world of psychology; it is a technique of manipulation to achieve power. Here are eleven warning signs:

  1. They tell blatant lies.
  2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
  3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
  4. They wear you down over time.
  5. Their actions do not match their words.
  6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
  7. They know confusion weakens people.
  8. They project.
  9. They try to align people against you.
  10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
  11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

The British state has become increasingly Orwellian in its gaslighting of the British public since at least 1997 with near-total complicity from the media. In a recent article for Quillette, I argued that this has been the case in both Britain and the USA for years.

This has especially been the case in the area of crime. During a period in which both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have become increasingly statist and interventionist on both an economic and civil level, we have been continually told that one of the positive effects of ever-increasing government control is that society is becoming more peaceful. This is the narrative, for example, of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. In 2005, The Guardian told us that since 1995 overall crime had decreased by 44%. Almost a decade later the same publication wondered out loud what could be causing the continued decline in crime rates in the UK. And just a few years after that, they had changed their tune completely decrying sudden increases in violent crime and blaming this on cuts in police numbers. In the first few months of 2018, the shocking increases in instances of violent crime in Sadiq Khan’s London, which in the past year has seen rises of 31.3% in knife crime, 78% in acid attacks, 70% in youth homicides, 33.4% in robberies, 18.7% in burglaries, 33.9% in theft and 30% in child sex crime.  But this story told by The Guardian – of a general trend down in crime over the past twenty years followed by a sudden and inexplicable spike – is simply not true, as I will demonstrate in this paper.

In 1997, Tony Blair famously ran on a platform of being ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’. Unfortunately for him, the reality of empirical crime data had stubbornly refused to comply with his anointed vision through his first years in power. “New Labour” were famous for the efficiency of their propaganda machine. American readers will no doubt be aware of Mr. Blair’s complicity in making exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” in the run up to the war in Iraq, but few readers – British, American, or otherwise – will know that the Blair government was also lying about the extent of crime in Britain. The Labour Party, who were so much about media perceptions and political spin, needed to find a way to show on paper that their “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” agenda was making good on its promise. So, in 2003, Tony Blair permanently changed the way crime is reported in the UK by introducing the National Crime Recording Standard’ (NCRS). Up until that point, crime in the UK was reported using hard data drawn from actual arrests and convictions from the police. However, from that point onwards, the official statistics were to be drawn from the British Crime Survey which estimates crime based on a survey of 50,000 people aged 16 or over. This works much like how television companies produce estimates for their show ratings. So that means that the statistics you see quoted in newspapers like The Guardian are not hard figures, but estimates drawn from surveys. Whatever the merits of this method, it produced a graph for the Blair government that looked like this:

parvini1

This change ostensibly came about because – as part of the “tough on the causes of crime” part of their pledge, Labour wanted to count victims as opposed to the total number of offenders. Of course, this takes a huge number of crimes out of the data. For example, as it was introduced in 2003, because only over 16-year olds could be interviewed, crimes against minors were not registered in the official statistics. Also, because interviews had to take place in private properties, street crime habitually would not show up in these numbers. Of course, so-called “victimless” crimes – fraud or online crime – do not show up in this data either. Once you start to account for some of these caveats, it becomes more obvious why this extraordinary change in methodology would produce a downwards trend in the data. In fact, it was explicitly designed so that, because of these changes, it could not be compared with numbers before 2002.

In 2007, Ken Pease and Graham Farrell estimated that the survey data could be underestimating violent crime by as much as 82%, with the real number of victims closer to 4.4 million than 2.4 million. This massive margin of error means that the real crime rate becomes a matter for debate as opposed to a question of hard evidence. It seems to me that this was a deliberate choice by the Blair government. Hence, we now find the BBC wondering about what the real crime rate might be.   And this is where the true extent of the Orwellian nightmare of the Blair and Gordon Brown years dawns: by making the crime rate an estimate neither political party can reliably point to the facts, and it always becomes a question of one difficult to substantiate narrative against another. “Post-truth” did not start with Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump – Tony Blair was doing it from the minute he stepped into office.

However, real numbers of convicted offenders are still recorded and kept, although they are somewhat difficult to obtain. In the run-up to the 2010 British election, Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, requested the real numbers from the House of Commons library which duly produced a series of independent reports. Incidentally, once the leader of the Tories, David Cameron, became prime minister in 2010, Chris Grayling became the Secretary for Justice and, to my knowledge, was happy to let this little detail slide and continue with the survey-based methodology. It is funny how power can change the incentives for action.

In any case, the numbers that Grayling requested are damning for anyone who claims that either overall crime or violent crime decreased in the UK between 1997 and 2010.

The population of the UK was about 58 million people in 1997. In 2008, that had increased to 62 million, an increase of 6.87%. In that same period male violent crime convictions in England and Wales increased by around 63.92% from 49,153 in 1997 to 80,574 in 2008. So violent crime convictions increased by more than ten times the growth of the population.

Increases like this can been seen across virtually every category of crime. Convictions for persons under 18, for example, increased by 60.18% from 12,806 in 1997 to 20,513 in 2008, in keeping with the average increase in violent crime, this is ten times the rate of population growth in the same period. Knife crime practically doubled during the Blair years, from 3,360 offenders in 1997 to 6,368 in 2008. In 1998 there were 5,542 robberies, in 2008 there were 8,475. From the year 2000 to 2008, the total number of arrests for any offence went up from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, an increase of about 17%.

For the claim to be true that violent crime went down 44% during the 00s in the UK, it would have to be at a time when violent crime convictions went up 64%. For the claim to be true that overall crime went down in from 1997 to 2008, it would have to be at a time when overall convictions for crime went up by 17%. Both claims seem extraordinary: how could there be a rise in convictions without a corresponding increase in crime? The methodology that measures victims through estimates from survey data clearly is not getting this correct.

If we use recorded convictions in this way, as opposed to estimates, we can make meaningful comparisons to the past as Peter Hitchens does in The Abolition of Liberty. As we have seen, the total number of convictions in England and Wales for 2008 was around 1.47 million for a population of 62 million people, around 2.25% of the population. According to Hitchens the comparable number in 1861 at the height of laissez-faire was 88,000 for a population of 20,066,224, or around 0.44% of the population. In 1911, before Leviathan and the welfare state had really had a chance to grow, the number was 97,000 for a population of 36,075,269, or around 0.27% of the population. The claim that crime has risen because of government cuts to the numbers of police also cannot stand since in 1911 there were 51,203 officers whereas by 2009 there were 144,353 officers. The increase in police officers from 1911 to 2009 therefore is 181.92% compared with an increase of 71.86% in total population. So the size of the repressive apparatuses of the state have increased greatly, and with it the total number of criminals.

It is clear that with less personal freedom and a bigger and more invasive state comes less personal responsibility and greater lawlessness. It is also clear that as the British state has become more top-down in orientation than in its common-law past, it has levied increased coercive legislative power against the British people it supposedly serves. The state is now behaving in an openly Orwellian manner with near-explicit contempt for the public.

On Fake News And Where It Originates From

It should be well established by now that this blog opposes globalisation and supports small government and individual liberty. It should also be well established that the mainstream media and social media organisations like Facebook and Twitter, controlled by the globalist banking cartel, have dedicated themselves to suppressing what they call ‘Fake news’, which has never been properly defined but which according to mainstream media and social media is anything that dissents from the globalist narrative.

So here’s a little snippet that shows where fake news originates and gives us a clue as to the agernda of those behind it’s use in propaganda.

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a …….WORLD GOVERNMENT ”

David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

Is Germany Disintegrating Like Yougoslavia Did?

All sorts of centralized organizations that appear rock-solid may well melt into air as the disintegrative dynamics gather momentum.

Germany has long been seen as the rock on which the European Union is founded. Never mind that the formation of the EU’s first incarnation, the 6 member Common Market came only a few years after the defeat of the Nazi attempt to unify Europe’s culturally and economically diverse nations as a single political, financial and cultural entity under a common flag, or that the plainly stated goal of the Common market’s founders was from day one the political integration of Europe, somehow the ruling elites were either stupid enough or perhaps, given that they might have been singing from a very different song sheet to us punters, cunning enough to let Germany sieze a pivotal role in this new ‘free trade’ organisation, or that Britain was kept out until German domination was well established.

But with nationalistic feeling resurgent in Italy, Spain, Poland and many of the smaller EU nations and the push for ‘ever closer integration’ encountering increased resistance almost everywhere, suddenly we find that all is not well in Germany, that purported bastion of political and economic stability and social cohestion

Rising political and social discord in Germany, as in the rest of Europe, is generally being attributed to “populism” as the national elites and Brussels bureaucrats try to pretend everything is under control, but  may actually signal the re-emergence of the ancient geographic and cultural fault lines that led to the formation of Europe’s many nations. An often-overlooked manifestation of this might be the nation-state of Germany.

It may be convenient and expedient for politicians and the media to blame “populism” for the fracturing of the status quo in Germany, but to do that is to conveniently forget that Germany does not have the thousand plus year history of some other EU member states such as Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Portugal (in spite of several hundred years of Muslim incursion,) and Austria, but only became a single nation in 1870 when Otto von Bismarck united a number of independent principalities and grand duchies.

Given the undertones of ethnic/religious bias attached to “populism,” this allows media-savvy politicians to paint opponents as racist by using the the code-word “populist” as a substitute. In fact populist does not equate to racist, Hitler may have been a populist and a racist, but Mohandas K Gandhi was also a populist and a nationalist but nobody would call him a racist.

Labeling dissenters “populists” as the Merkel government and other establishment parties along with left wing extremists like the greens and Marxists have doesn’t explain or predict anything. In terms of economic classes, it’s more insightful to distinguish between the Protected Class (insiders and favored elites) who benefit enormously from the status quo and the Unprotected Class (outsiders, marginalized workers, those without privilege or access to cheap capital).

But this wealth gap doesn’t exhaust the sources of profound social discord. As historian Peter Turchin explained in Ages of Discord, historical eras are either integrative, in which people find reasons to cooperate, or disintegrative periods in which reasons to split apart become dominant. Clearly, the geopolitical order is entering a disintegrative phrase, and dismissing those who dissent from the establishment’s all-joi-hands-and-sing-kumbaya narrative as “populists” is not going to reverse that. For insight on how the disintegrative phase may manifest in Germany, let’s turn to Mark G.’s commentary:

Merkel faces own ‘German BREXIT’ Chancellor’s immigration crisis is ‘Threat to Europe’

The breakdown of the Bavarian CSU and German CDU center-right coalition (refounded post WWII by Konrad Adenauer) is historic. And it has definite regional implications. I think we could be watching the beginning moves not in a “German Brexit” but in the political collapse of the modern German state into multiple components. As I mentioned last year, I personally expect this because modern Germany is a rump survival of Bismarck’s Wihelmine German Empire. It has lost all strategic rationale for its existence. And under Frau Merkel it has almost no military forces and no control of its own borders. Such a ‘state’ cannot long endure.

“Mr Seehofer – who is also the chairman of coalition partner the Christian Social Union (CSU) – has agreed to give Mrs Merkel two weeks to try and thrash out a Europe-wide migration policy with other leaders at the European Council meeting at the end of the month.”

Merkel has zero point zero chance of reaching any Europe-wide agreement on immigration given the present composition of the governments of Austria, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and Poland. Since 2015 all of them have been electorally remodeled into populist based governments with fundamental anti-refugee and anti-migrant views. As an example, when we passed through the Sudetenland last year in Czechia the highway billboards openly proclaimed “No Islam – No Terrorism”.

Their thinking is vastly closer to Seehofer’s than to Merkel’s. Merkel can’t even control her primary CSU coalition partner any further. What is more likely to occur is the German government, or multiple successor German governments, will move much closer to the eastern European position.

And if Merkel attempts to construct a hard left domestic coalition consisting of the CDU, the SDP, the Greens and “The Left” (Die Linke) to continue her present policies, then I expect the CDU itself to experience an internal split and also further hemorrhaging to Alternativ fur Deustschland. Its difficult to see her retaining her position in the CDU after presiding over the collapse of the historic CDU/CSU coalition.

New elections are highly likely in these circumstances. And in the last elections the main Center parties – CDU/CSU and also SDP – all lost significant numbers of supporters to the AfD and Die Linke. Another round at this point will probably produce a much larger AfD, plus political gridlock as the Establishment attempts to ignore the democratic result.

On an anecdotal basis, last year I again met individuals in Rheinland-Pfalz who in 2015 had been members of The Greens. Come 2017 they all had left the Greens and were wavering between the CDU & AfD.

On a related issue: it seems to me the present migration induced political crisis in German politics will cause the PIGS to attempt to rebid and renegotiate the terms of their ECB/IMF bailouts.

In the light of points made in the above extract it is fair to say that Marx’s famous summary of the disintegrative forces inherent in capitalism–“Everything solid melts into air”– aptly describes the core dynamics of disintegrative phases.

germany-map2

If we look at a map of the states which make up modern Germany circa 1866 and ask if the geographic, political and cultural lines visible on this map still pertain beneath the surface of a monolithic modern state. All sorts of centralized organizations that appear rock-solid may well melt into air as the disintegrative dynamics gather momentum.

It would be foolish to compare Germany to Yugoslavia in the early 1990s? But the social and economic problems in Germany  and other European Union member states, 25 years after its founding is a warning signal of the dangers of trying to foist changes beneficial to the elites onto the mass of working and middle class populations. In particular the immigration policy imposed by Brussels of simply allowing in all arrivals has been a social disaster.

The EU’s central bureaucracy along with the main advocates of political integration, Germany and France have long portrayed the union of European states as a political, economic and historical success story. But the downside of this merger is all too often ignored – and this is increasingly endangering its future.

The Maastricht Treaty, the 25th anniversary of which passed last week, was the European Union’s founding document and the point at which all pretence of the EU being nothing more than a free trade area was abandoned. For a few years after the treaty was signed, it seemed that no one was able to recognize the European Union’s innate defects, or those that did were dismissed as right wing reactionaries.

Ever since Maastricht one of the European Union’s faults has been the ineptitude of its attempts to put together a common approach to foreogn policy. First its inability to correctly assess the conflicts in Yugoslavia, which were going on at the time or to exert a moderating influence on the warring parties and to prevent civil wars in the region. Before it even evolved into the EU, the European Community was inconsistent and unconvincing when it came to applying the values it claimed to represent to its dealings with Yugoslavia.

One of the main reasons for this has been the fact that the main EU power, Germany, still suffering an enormous guilt hangover from the 20th century’s two great wars, has declined to act but has by inaction, by failing to lead, prevented the rest of the EU from doing what needed to be done.

With the signing of the Maastricht treaty, Germany transferred not only its economic power and postwar instinct toward non – intervention to the EU but also it’s moral authority. And a bunch of smooth cheeked deal makers, which is what the EU Commission, the committee which effectively controls the EU, are always going to shirk moral responsibility, preferring to take refuge in rules and regulations.  Just like West Germany during the Cold War, the newly constituted union of states was an economic giant, but a dwarf in the foreign policy arena.

This dwarf has barely grown in the past quarter century. Occasional forays into international conflicts while hanging onto America’s coat tails have ended disastrously for the people the effort was supposed to help, while purely diplomatic initiatives  have all failed. Thus today, for example, there is no consistent foreign policy line on the Balkans – and the western Balkans are, again, increasingly unstable.

Meanwhile in Germany, Angela Merkel’s fragile coalition totters on the brink of collapse as the Christian Social Union (CSU), a conservative party which dominates the federal province of Bravaria threatens to quit is support of Merkel and thus bring down her government over her idiotic insistence on maintaining the ‘open doors’ immigration policy that has allowed millions of illiterate, culturally backward and unemployable third world peasants to flood into the country.

“With populist parties AfD (Alternatif fur Deutschland) and FDR (Free Deomcrats) having made vast gains in last year’s inconclusive election, if Merkel falls Germany could end up with an anti – EU coalition vehmently opposed to mass immigration in power. Yet some German states are very left wing and collectivist and would find this intolerable.

So where could federal Germany go from there?

Currency war can end global US dollar dominance & those who own gold have power

The world is facing a currency war and the only hedge against the crash of the US dollar is real gold, a precious metal analyst has said in an interview with RT. With geopolitical power shifting from West to East, US dominance may be ending. “But isn’t this just one person’s opinion?” you might well ask.

In this particular instance it is, but this page has spent enough time over the past few years reporting on the coming currency war, the move by China, Russia and a group of emerging economic powers including India and Brazil, to abandon the US$ as the reserve currency for international trades to convince even the most gung ho American patriots that something is going on that cannot have a good outcome for their country.

A significant sign that the USA is no longer regarded as the ultimate safe haven is the recent rush tp repatriate physical gold from the United States. In the past twleve months nations including Germany, Turkey, France, The Netherlands, South Korea and Japan have been taking their bullion home. The reason is the Cold War is over and despite the Russiagate scaremongering of neocons and the military – industrial complex, countries don’t see Russia as a threat anymore, says Claudio Grass, an independent precious metals advisor and Mises Ambassador.

The world has been living in crisis since 2008, while a currency war started even earlier, Grass said to RT. Central banks have been creating trillions of dollars out of thin air by issuing bonds, while central banks are coordinating the debasing of currencies, he said.

None of the money printing panic measures implemented since 2008 have made a significant difference, and with sovereign debt still growing it is obvious that the systemic problems still exist. The longer economies remain reliant on debt the greater the risks become and the more fragile the global economy is. More than 65 percent of all monetary reserves in the central banking system are held in the world currency reserve, i.e. in USDollar denominated treasury bonds. Therefore, holding physical gold is definitely the best hedge against a crash of any paper currency, and therefore also against a crash of the USD.

The global economy has become boged down in a “Monopoly-Game” system or a legalised Ponzi scheme that is based on debt and financial leverage.

Macron and Merkel Agree Eurozone Tax Integration

gettyimages-978686598-640x480
Hausfrau Volksfuhrer Merkel and Grandmothertrucker Macron

France and Germany have agreed to introduce a single Eurozone budget and shared emergency funds for the bloc, as the brussels bureaucrats and globalist puppet leaders try to push the European Union (EU) towards deeper, globalist integration after the Brexit vote. It seems a bit futile with Merkel facing a political crisis that could bring down her government by the end of the month, but reality doesn’t touch political leaders lives often.

The German Chancellor and her French counterpart, President Emmanuel Macron, met this Tuesday to finalise plans for sweeping reforms which will affect the 19 member states that joined the single currency system and use the Euro. The plans will come into  force in 2021 the leaders of the Paris Berlin axis said.

“France and Germany have agreed to set up a Eurozone budget. More EU centralisation, this is not what voters want,” tweeted former UKIP leader and MEP Nigel Farage, reacting to the news Tuesday afternoon.

“We are working to make sure that the eurozone budget will be used to strengthen investment, also with the aim of strengthening [political] convergence within the eurozone,” Chancellor Merkel said ahead of the agreement.

President Macron is reported by, Deutsche Welle as saying that the budget will be a “real budget with annual revenues and spending”.

“We want Europe to find its place in a multilateral world,” added the German Chancellor, speaking of wider reforms, foreign policy, and defence.

She continued by frankly stating that they would force some EU nations to accept the expanding power of the bloc, even if  member states’ governments disagreed.

Are you Remainers starting to see how the EU works now and why intelligent British people got sick of being part of a glorified Franco-German empire?