When Oligarchs Get Hacked: The George Soros Leak

The latest hack and dump of 2,576 of the foundations’ internal documents and memos show that the Open Society Foundations are actually major purveyors of the Western soft power culture revolution.

After covering Putin’s plans for Russia last week, it would only be appropriate to take a look at what the Western leaders of the Globalist faction have been up to. The recent hack into billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has conveniently given us such an opportunity. But before we can get into the leaks, a brief review of George Soros, and exactly what his role is among the rest of the Western leadership is in order.

George Soros started his career in investment finance trading in European stocks, working with the burgeoning European Economic Community, a predecessor for the EU. Throughout the 70’s, Soros would successfully go on to developing and managing several of his own lucrative hedge funds, including the Quantum Fund, the most profitable hedge fund in history. As with many of the idle rich, Soros would then fall into meddling with world affairs, specifically in the areas of press and news media. In the mid to late 80’s Soros cut his teeth on the Globalist game by spreading the appeal of Capitalism to the ailing Communist Bloc nations. As of 1994, Soros financed over 40 radio and TV stations and press outlets in Eastern Europe, and gave $10 million to Russian news outlets in 1998. After the fall of Communism, Soros’ control over Russian state organs became more direct. If you’ll recall from last week’s William F. Engdahl article, it was advisors with financial ties to Soros who formed the Yeltsin economic team, which privatized Russian state assets and sold them to Western investors at wholesale prices. It was also Yeltsin who gave into pressure from the West to privatize the Russian State Bank and tie the value of the Ruble to the Dollar.

In American business, Soros is an investor of media conglomerate Viacom and through his various foundations, has funded and given grants to dozens of news programs from NPR and televisions shows on MSNBC to blogs like ThinkProgress and Alternet. He has even sponsored journalism awards. If this is the first time you are hearing about this leak, those might be a few reasons why.

As for Soros’ Open Society Foundations, they are anything but. The organizations are literally at the bottom of the list for transparency, making these leaks all the more telling.

Screen Shot 2016-08-29 at 7.44.04 PM

The self-proclaimed purpose of these foundations is to “seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments…” and many other righteous causes in the name of Western democracy. The latest hack and dump of 2,576 of the foundations’ internal documents and memos show that the Open Society Foundations are actually major purveyors of the Western soft power culture revolution. One function of these foundations is to serve as a global clearing house for rich investors to assemble and push exploitative business arrangements and for-profit loans along with IMF loans to distressed nations, and as a nexus to coordinate and manifest said deals and arrangements via public policy through monetary grants and funds to agreeable NGO’s and politicians. The foundations also serve to buy up media outlets and sway public opinion on social issues as well as political candidates. With that much chicanery and charlatanism on display in these leaks, the lack of transparency would seem necessary.

The Ukraine

From the Open Society leak, we have a document from Soros concerning the ongoing conflict with Russia over the Ukraine in particular.

A short and medium – term comprehensive strategy for the new Ukraine[pdf]

In the document, Soros himself lays out strategic goals for the West with an aim of reversing Putin’s recent gains in the Ukraine. He first suggests a rearmament program for the Ukrainian military, then prioritizes the defense of the National Bank of the Ukraine, the primary recipient and distributor of IMF loans (and Ukrainian debt) in the country. Soros’ solution to bolstering the current pro-Western regime is to develop yet another loan program, this time borrowing directly from the EU common market and EU budget, to prop up the stagnant Ukrainian economy. He then plans to encourage investment in the war-torn country, stating “To turn the tables on Putin, Ukraine needs to be converted from a source of political risk to an attractive investment destination.” Soros even appoints a Minister Abromavičius to coordinate a donor and investor conference with the Soros-backed Project Management Office.

Once the insurance is available, I am prepared to invest up to $1 billion in Ukrainian businesses. This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine must become an attractive investment destination. The investments will be for-profit but I will pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am advocating policies in search of personal gain.

With Eastern Europe still reeling from the iron fist of Communism, the Ukraine ought to be fertile ground for Western influence, but a stagnant economy threatens to ruin all of that. Considering the fact that China and Russia, and the Stolypin Club, are contemplating the establishment of economic unions throughout Eurasia and the South China Sea, the West needs to sweeten its deal despite the fact that Ukraine has not been granted membership into the EU or NATO. Now that Putin has played his hand in the invasion, the groundwork to “fast track” said membership processes is being established by the West.

Europe

Moving onto Europe, another leaked Open Society Foundations document shows the group’s efforts to manipulate public opinion towards immigration policies.

Migration Governance and Enforcement Portfolio Review[pdf]

If you’ve been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the EU and Europe, the immigration crisis has proven to be a political powder keg, being the primary motivation for the Brexit referendum and a key to the geopolitics of Eurasia. Of note is the EU’s, and specifically German Chancellor Merkel’s, relentless push for control over Europe’s immigration policy and the dispersal of Syrian refugees across the region. Looking at the Learnings/Conclusions portion of the document, the foundation makes its agenda very clear:

Accepting the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react
Observing our partners as they respond and adjust to the new reality in light of the crisis in Europe and the Mediterranean, we see little attention given to long-term planning or fundamentally new approaches to advocacy.

Observing such a popular resistance to Globalist policies should be no surprise to the foundation, yet the plan is to continue pushing forward with their agenda by “reexamining methods of influencing and experimenting with framings and argumentation, both at elite and popular levels.” Soros is a major donor to the Center for American Progress, also subject to the leak, who have recently targeted and tracked organizations and individuals opposed to the spread of the Islamic ideology, applying the blanket label of racist and bigot. The following is found on page 32 of the Center for American Progress leaked documents.

Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civic Discourse[pdf]

CAP will research and track the activities of the most prominent drivers of Islamophobia, including Stop Islamization of America, led by Pamela Geller; the Center for Security Policy, led by Frank Gaffney; David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, which sponsors Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch; the Middle East Forum, led by Daniel Pipes; the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, led by Cliff May; and Keep America Safe, led by Liz Cheney. In addition, CAP will examine the role played by right-wing media, the Tea Party movement, prominent politicians, pundits, and conservative donors in spreading anti-Muslim hysteria.

So much for an open society with “a diversity of opinions.” Mr. Soros doesn’t have a problem with your opinions as long as they conform to his own. Yet, if you disagree with his immigration policy, and are not “[a]ccepting the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react,” you will be labeled a bigot and shamed. Unfortunately for Mr. Soros and the rest of the Globalist elite, the people of Europe are not so willing to hand over the power to legislate who will and will not be allowed in their country. The geopolitical dilemma the Globalists have blundered into with Erdogan in Turkey will garner zero sympathy from the people, as it was the Globalists who originally wanted regime change in Syria.

The US

In the US, Soros has been busy attempting to sway the election towards his candidate and fellow Globalist, Hillary Clinton, whose campaign he has already donated $8 million to.

OPEN SOCIETY U.S. PROGRAMS BOARD MEETING New York, New York October 1-2, 2015[pdf]

On page 21 of this leaked report presented to an Open Society meeting, the foundation discusses the challenges of using “decentralized movements” to manipulate public opinion.

Heading into the 2016 Presidential election season, we’ve seen increased visibility from several burgeoning social justice movements, each vying to shape the nation’s political agenda.

Bringing up the point that they furnished the BlackLivesMatter movement with a $650,000 grant when it was still in its infancy, the foundation must have felt as though they’ve bought up the movement as the idea of manipulating and shaping the direction of BlackLivesMatter is proposed. This would allow the foundation an opportunity to further manipulate and shape public discourse under the guise of what was originally billed as a legitimate national conversation on race relations.

This begs the question of what is the appropriate role for philanthropy, in either supporting or defining policy agendas. Does philanthropy undermine the field when it advocates directly in spheres of political influence instead of empowering grantees to do the same?…
That support calls into question how we might most appropriately support such efforts; specifically whether we should seek to shape the movement as opposed to facilitate its direct action.

The point of all of this manipulation is already made plain by the very first sentence of the section “Heading into the 2016 Presidential election season…” A recent Pew Research report has placed a new emphasis on winning votes from the Hispanic and Black communities, a demographic that substantially helped Barack Obama reach office. If Soros is supporting these so-called social justice reforms and the BlackLivesMatter movement to sway voters towards his candidate of choice, then he is not acting in an altruistic manner at all. Instead, he merely wants the candidate he bought, that’s Hillary Clinton, to win so he can spread his influence further in the federal government and on the world stage. Yet another leaked document would support this assertion.

Voting Rights Portfolio Review: Outcomes Summary[pdf]

This document details the Open Society Foundations’ attempt to encourage policies that would bring members of the Black and Hispanic communities to the polls in greater numbers.

We outlined two critical points in time—the election of President Obama and the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder—that motivated us and the field to beat back conservative attempts to suppress the vote of people of color and other marginalized communities and, at the same time, push for affirmative reforms in election administration that would add voters of color to the rolls. [emphasis added]

Notice no talk of adding additional security measures to the actual electronic voting machines themselves, which are subject to fewer regulations and checks than Las Vegas slot machines. There is no mention of the open accusation made by Clinton Eugene Curtis, who stated under oath in front of the U.S. House Judiciary Members in Ohio that he was instructed by Congressman Tom Feeney to create software that could throw the 2000 election one way or the other. Mr. Soros, along with his conservative opponents on this issue, have no intention of protecting the electorate or the legitimacy of the election, they are just trying to influence, spin, and game the system to keep them, their political friends, and all of their toadies in positions of power. Whether the result has a racist outcome disproportionately disadvantaging “voters of color,” or, on the contrary, produces more equity and fairness in society is of little value as the motivation is not altruistic, but entirely self-serving. If this issue concerning race never interfaced with elections, what sort of return would Soros receive for his investment?

The value of Soros and the Open Society Foundations adopting the “social justice” equality approach is the seemingly unassailable nature of their position. By taking on the face of social groups like BlackLivesMatter and various “social progress” movements, Soros’ agents can masquerade as victims of ignorance, circumstance, and poverty. By identifying as both victim and aggressor, Soros can continue to manipulate public opinion from the shadows, using his victim thralls and social justice warriors to label and shame those who disagree with his narrative as racists and lacking virtue.

Whether race baiting, funding divisive rhetoric, adding names to the black list, or calling for armament programs for foreign armies, the Open Society Foundations are not the peaceful, altruistic organizations that Mr. Soros would have you think they are. The foundations don’t strengthen democracy, they subvert it all over the world. They don’t promote free speech or a plurality of opinions, they stamp it out and silence those who disagree. The Open Society Foundations are nothing more than a weapon in the Western soft power arsenal, in a struggle that the Nazis would have called “Weltanschauungskrieg,” or worldview warfare. This  weapon is becoming less and less effective as Soros’ lies and schemes are becoming more transparent every day, and this leak is not going to help one bit. But then again, if your global strategy relies on widespread ignorance, secrecy, and obfuscating the debate, don’t be surprised when the truth leaks out, eventually.

 

 

US Capitulates to Russia Over Syrian War Cooperation

The administration is now publicly announcing Kerry’s cooperation with Lavrov in what could be construed as an unofficial abandonment of the regime change goal.

A little over a month ago, a strange thing happened in Washington. On July 14th, Secretary of State John Kerry got on a plane, flew to the Kremlin in Moscow, and met with Vladimir Putin to discuss cooperation and coordination between US and Russian military forces in Syria. The meeting lasted three to four hours and until 1 o’clock in the morning. On the 15th, Kerry met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, most likely going over the finer points and details of military cooperation. This offer concluded a slow, forced shift in US policy, over the course of a few years, that originally demanded the removal of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a.k.a. “regime change.” This initial policy changed to allowing Assad to stay in power until stepping down on a later date. Then, after a meeting in December of last year, US policy again changed to allowing Assad to compete in future elections and abandoning any timetables calling for his resignation. The July meetings between Kerry, Putin and Lavrov signaled that the original mission of regime change had quietly been abandoned.

The Obama administration just ‘made a scary retreat’ in its Syria policy, and negotiations are quickly unraveling

But this shift would not remain quiet, and suspicion among the media and political commentators would grow after press secretaries/mouthpieces could not elaborate on Sec. Kerry’s meeting. The White House Press Secretary could not even confirm if the White House had or had not approved the meeting. In fact, the State Department spokesperson refused to even comment or characterize the meeting. When confronted with the accusations of a shift in US policy, the State Department simply avoided, dissembled, and played semantic word games until the press gave up on the question. These weird, embarrassing interactions have been linked below:

7/14/16: White House Press Briefing

Matt Lee: So, the Russians were right about Syria? 14 July 2016

Fast forward to today and cooperation with the Russians is treated as a no-brainer, nothing to see here. The fact that the US has been pressured into changing its foreign policy has gone unrecognized. The administration is now publicly announcing Kerry’s cooperation with Lavrov in what could be construed as an unofficial abandonment of the regime change goal.

Lavrov, Kerry to meet on Syria and Ukraine in Geneva on Friday

Russia also said that the two ministers had talked about the need to separate “Washington-oriented” Syrian opposition groups from the “terrorist groups” that are not covered by a regularly broken ceasefire.

This detail may seem somewhat minor or mundane, but it’s actually quite important. As the US has refused to identify exactly which “moderate” terrorist groups they are backing against Assad, the Russians couldn’t target them to remove the West’s influence in Syria. If Kerry is forced to share this information with Lavrov, expect to see a rapid degradation of the West’s power in Syria, and for Assad to remain in power. Such a result would be yet another failure by Western leadership, who have also been contending with a myriad of issues including the Brexit, the EU immigration crisis, Chinese expansionism, and a petulant Erdogan in Turkey. Time and time again, the Globalists are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place by refusing to yield to silly things like national sovereignty or self-determination.

Knowing this, the adversaries of the West have begun to play off of this inflexibility, and Erdogan has given the US and the EU offers that they can’t help but refuse. By publicly promising to reinstate the death penalty, Erdogan has disqualified his country from EU membership, yet he is still demanding the advancement of Turkey’s application process into the EU. If the EU, doesn’t give in to his demands, Erdogan has threatened to unleash a wave of up to 2 million refugees into Europe. Either choice is a losing situation for the EU. Erdogan also gave the US an ultimatum, demanding the extradition of alleged Turkey coup plotter Fethullah Gulen. This creates a rather serious ethical/political dilemma as the US must weigh the geopolitical importance of good relations with Turkey against sending a man (and reportedly a Clinton asset) to his death. The fact that Erdogan is able to make these ultimatums suggests that Turkey represents a vital component in the West’s geopolitical ambitions against Russia, but I suggest that Erdogan has no intention to mend fences with the West. Instead, he has turned to the East.

Vladi’s World: A Look Inside Putin’s Plans for Russia

With the monetarists silent and the Keynesian policies being passed over, the Stolypin Club may have Putin’s ear, now.

In a previous piece about events in Eurasia I focused on Russia’s larger geopolitical goals and only briefly mentioned the New Silk Road Initiative and its economic implications. Now, we shall delve further into the latter. This article is from Mr. F. William Engdahl, whose research is admirably impeccable in its thoroughness.

Putin: Nyet to Neo-liberals, Da to National Development

The focus of the article is the Stolypin Club, an economic think tank inspired by the ideas of 19th century German-American economist Friedrich List. Compared to Putin’s other advisors, Alexei Kudrin the flustered Keynesian and the monetarist sect who recommend no action be taken, the Stolypin Club have developed a plan to reinvest in Russian education and healthcare to bolster their economy with skilled workers, the cessation of debt-based money, and the deliberate hording of gold (along with ally China) to use as a backing for the Ruble in opposition to the Dollar.

Friedrich List was the developer of “National Systems,” an old concept very much opposed by the Globalists in London, Berlin and Washington. List believed that the touting of international free trade (think TTIP, TPP, and NAFTA) was really a ruse to make the economies of less developed nations dependent on first world manufacturing or services. Instead, List suggested that an economic or customs union be developed for the region first, and when economic, technological, and cultural parity or near-parity is attained between the members of the union, the whole may be solidified under one government, treaty, or set of laws. Friedrich List’s ideas were rather well-received in his time, as Prussia used his principles to develop the massive Zollverein, a 164,000 square mile economic union controlling tariffs and economic policy between the German states in the 1800’s. By 1871, the region had solidified itself into the German Empire, the economic colossus that took the world four years to subdue in World War I. What’s more, List’s ideas would go on to inspire the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU.

Therefore, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see a penchant for economic and customs unions among the members of the Stolypin Club, and we find just that.

Both Titov and Glazyev, an adviser to Putin on Ukraine and other matters, are founding members of the Stolypin Club in Russia. In 2012 Glazyev was named by Putin, then Prime Minister, to coordinate the work of federal agencies in developing the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, today the Eurasian Economic Union.

Combine this outlook with Putin’s offer of partnership to Turkey along with the rest of Eurasia, it’s even more proof that Russia is attempting to free up and organize trade in Central Asia. Connecting Russia and China to this potential Zollverein would be the New Silk Road Initiative, an infrastructure project creating highways, rail lines, and communications systems throughout Asia and the Middle East. With the prospect of establishing a continent-wide trade system and a possible economic union in the South China Sea, China and Russia may have an economic basis to sustain their currencies outside of the Dollar system, which the Ruble had been pegged to for 24 years after the State Bank of Russia was privatized in 1990. The use of gold as a backing, however, has nearly no effect on the Dollar, but would be very useful in a time of war or in the aftermath of an economic collapse.

With the monetarists silent and the Keynesian policies being passed over, the Stolypin Club may have Putin’s ear, now. Given these clearly anti-Globalist policies and Nationalist tendencies, we can certainly expect the Globalists to gnash their teeth and shake their fists at Russia. If Putin decides to carry out these proposals, and attempt to break out with the Ruble, expect to see a sudden surge of counterfeiting of the Russian currency. Also expect to see sudden glitches and hacks in the BRICS global payment system, which competes with the West’s SWIFT system. Either way, it would be a good idea to keep an eye, or maybe both eyes, on the Stolypin Club.

Nietzsche, Relativism, and the Death of Truth

When the individual is incapable of holding an objective thought, only the result of a collaborative effort between many is deemed to be based in reality and truth.

After dealing with the concept of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch in the first blog on this topic, we are now left to examine his concept of Perspectivism, and the wider umbrella term of Relativism under which it falls. Many have come to view our “postmodern” society as an opaque dystopia. Politics are heavily polarized and scandalous, the people are growing more divided along race and gender lines, popular culture is marginalizing the individual thinker into the lunatic fringe, and the impression left on us by the mainstream media is that we live in a mean, mean world along with our fellow psychotics. This is all the result of the divorce of society from the concept of universal truth, and the rejection of the notion that the individual has the ability to hold an objective thought. By doing away with the truth, the search for truth is done away with as well. So what happened? Where did it all go wrong? A more appropriate question to ask is “How did it all go wrong again?” as humanity has already observed and dealt with this issue in the past. It was Nietzsche who sent us back into the Bronze Age.

Before Nietzsche, there were the Sophists. These were ancient Greek teachers who peddled their lessons to the progeny of wealthy clients, claiming to be able to pass on their own virtues and wisdom to their lucky students. Rather than teaching actual knowledge (this was a time before modern science) they taught their own experiences and philosophy, and their teachings were often at odds with each other. Socrates noticed all of this, and saw how focusing on truth would often be compromised by touting popular belief to garner more students and collect more fees. Rather than collaborating to discover reality, the Sophists were competing against each other and the knowledge, and their students, suffered for it. Through his protege, Plato, the two would go on to condemn the Sophists and point out the first recorded instance of their expounding of Relativism. This is the concept that individual viewpoints are devoid of any type of objective, absolute truth, and the only value said viewpoints have is relative to the thought process and perspective of the individual. As the Sophists needed a means to defend their corrupted industry, they used Relativism to obscure the issue. Rather than having to answer the dichotomy of true and false, teaching knowledge or being a fraud, the entire search for truth was sidestepped, and their businesses could continue as “it’s all relative” and all viewpoints had value. Plato and Socrates were completely opposed to this thinking, and Plato would later use math and geometry to develop Platonic Realism and the concept of universal forms. By offering logic, reasoning, and math rather than pure rhetoric, Plato and Socrates would form the foundations of Western philosophy while the Sophists were later relegated to teaching speech craft in the Roman Empire.

Nietzsche was well-read and well aware of Plato’s criticisms of the Sophists, yet he considered Plato to be “boring” and claimed that the championing of reason would kill the passion needed for creativity and art. Nietzsche saw the decline of religious faith and the”death of God” as the primary factor for a coming fracture of society. Without one biblical narrative for all to believe in, he was convinced that the Western world would descend into nihilism and chaos. Nietzsche’s proposed remedy for this was his Perspectivism, which is essentially the same as Relativism but excludes the notion that all other viewpoints (and Sophists) are valued equally. By making this very small tweak to Relativism, Nietzsche gave himself sufficient leeway to suggest that scientists and science, intellectuals, and the political class be the new source for society’s values in his Ubermensch concept. God was on His way out, scientists and politicians were in. With one fell swoop, science and its thrall, pop culture, supplanted God and stood in opposition to the religious worldview.

So by Perspectivism and Relativism, we are cursed with the abandonment of the search for truth, the rejection of the ability to hold an objective thought, the leveling of value for all perspectives, and the modern science vs. religion culture war. Rather than encouraging the individual to discover the truth, we are now expected to listen to “experts,” refer to an authority, and seek a consensus among our peers to validate what is merely a perspective. We live in an age of “popular truth.”

The hideous fruit borne from the twisted tree that Nietzsche and the Sophists planted and nurtured is plain to see for all. The postmodern world has its own contemporary form of the Sophists in the form of the mass media, talking heads, and pundits. Instead of investigating and reporting the truth, yellow journalism, gossip, and two-party kool aid is pushed for ratings and the mantra of “if it bleeds, it leads.” Just like their ancient Greek counterparts, these sophists have corrupted themselves and their product for the sake of greed and short term gain. The audience on the receiving end of this dribble becomes polarized and begins to pick and choose their own reality in the absence of the possibility of truth. Identity politics is intensified, rhetoric becomes more divisive and blunt, and the echo chambers and circle jerks of the internet are filled with those who have given into group think and group values.

Society and culture itself is the primary victim of this Bronze age charlatanism. When the individual is incapable of holding an objective thought, only the result of a collaborative effort between many is deemed to be based in reality and truth. Queue the rise of rule by committee, political correctness, and so-called microaggressions, where everybody’s sensibilities must be catered to. The devaluing of the individual gives pop culture and popular belief more gravitas, allowing it to lord over the individual. The leveling of value for all perspectives is the groundwork for multiculturalism, and the delusional apologists for Islam. Group-thinkers like Ben Affleck ignore the scholarship from actual Muslims and researchers who have, for centuries, denounced certain precepts such as the outlawing of criticism and free speech and an aversion for innovation. Criticizing those apologists is met with accusations of racism, and further shaming for disagreeing. When an edict is passed down from our Ubermensch, the troops snap to and await their marching orders. The Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, and the stress on gender equality, was the societal value that was given to the people. The result is a militant movement of Social Justice Warriors and the third wave Feminist Supremacists who, eerily similar to the Maoist Red Guards, began to vociferously and viciously attack, silence, and demand the exile of teachers and fellow students who question or fail to toe the Title IX line. Even false accusations and staged events are not below these unfortunately brainwashed people.

The only benefactor in this postmodern misery seems to be our dear leaders, the Ubermensch. As they establish our values and are above morality, who are we to question their political scandals and criminal conduct? With the deep divisions in the two party system, one only needs to discredit and dismiss their opponents as lacking virtue and playing political games in order to free themselves of accountability. This process repeated on both sides has degraded the legitimacy of the democratic system as a whole. Endless warmongering is enabled by the ambiguous, broadly-defined term of “terrorist.” The Ubermensch will decide who is a terrorist and who is a “moderate Syrian rebel” or freedom fighter, and the American people are not excluded from being classified a boogeyman enemy of the state. When Western leaders need to make their case, they have the option of doctoring up a study or some statistics and presenting a junk science argument to the public. Even science, when it is divorced from natural philosophy, cause and correlation, will be politicized and spun to build a consensus from supporters or intellectually bully an opposing perspective with academic pettifogging and appeals to their own qualifications. Nothing has been left untouched.

This is the current, sad state of affairs in our society. Group-thinking, polarization, and the disenfranchisement and devaluing of individual thought and creativity have reverted us back into the Bronze age with all of its mob mentality barbarism and sophism. I suppose 2,500 years ago, one could excuse the Sophists since Socrates, Plato, logic and science were still embryonic. But today, the kaleidoscopic refraction of reality, culture, and societal values must be recognized and shown as a wholly unnecessary evil that serves only to divide and weaken. The shaming, accusations of racism, and puppeteering of science and popular culture has made a mockery of Western civilization, and has condemned its citizens to a vile, discordant purgatory.

But that’s just my perspective.

EU Leaders Caught on the Back Foot as Refugee Crisis Threatens to Intensify

Refusing to compromise on immigration policy is creating a lose-lose situation for the leaders of the European Union.

The Brexit referendum may soon be known as the first loud, reverberating “No” to the dictates of the non-elected bureaucrats running the EU. Although immigration policy and the Syrian refugee crisis was the primary issue motivating the vote to leave, the EU continues to demand that Britain acquiesce to their own border policies to access the EU market.

EU Nations Demand Britain Keep Unlimited Immigration After Brexit

Even though many analysts see the lack of flexibility over migration rules as one of the key factors that made Britons vote for Brexit, there is little evidence EU states are willing to compromise. Only Denmark, Austria and Bulgaria said they shared Britain’s concerns about open borders.

The EU’s ultimatum effectively banishes the UK, as no political leader would immediately flip flop on the border issue (and disobey the Queen). The proposal highlights the European Union’s current geopolitical struggles, and their single-track mission to disperse the influx of refugees. This unreasonable demand may have tipped the EU’s hand, however, as Erdogan decided afterwards to issue his own ultimatum:

Turkey Threatens To Reopen The Refugee Floodgates To Europe

Realizing the EU’s quandary, Erdogan gives quite an ultimatum, as Turkey wants to advance its inclusion into the EU on its own terms. Erdogan’s recent public commitment to reinstating the death penalty, his post-coup consolidation of dictatorial power, and his rejection of Ataturk’s secularist Turkey flies directly in the face of the Europe’s policy and culture. By threatening to unleash an estimated 2 million refugees over the border, Turkey is attempting to strong arm the EU in what could only be seen as an open challenge to the EU globalists. Capitulating to Turkey means that the standards for entrance into the EU, and EU policy, can be waived or ignored at a convenient time, undermining the authority of the bankers and bureaucrats calling the shots. Refusing Turkey’s terms could be even worse, as Europe and the West will lose an important ally in Eurasia and potentially force a breach in the strategic wall that has contained the Russians since the end of World War II. With Denmark, Austria, Bulgaria, and also Italy, Greece, and Hungary now expressing fear and deep displeasure at the thought of an uncontrolled influx of refugees and migrants, the political disaster that awaits Merkel and the Euro-Globalists is very real. Refusing to compromise on immigration policy is creating a lose-lose situation for the leaders of the European Union.

Italy launches anti-refugee campaign to warn asylum seekers against coming to Europe

In wake of Turkey unrest, Greece grows nervous about a potential spike in influx of refugees

BRUSSELS CRISIS: Hungary set to REJECT migrant quotas in huge blow to EU project

The first defiant “No” that was sounded by the Brexit is growing into a cacophony as Southern Europe winces at the thought of bearing the brunt of a refugee influx, and the ensuing political, economic, and social upheaval that follows. Turkey’s open defiance of EU leadership is a stern rejection of the top-down management of the globalists. As the EU’s position appears to become more and more untenable by the day, will Mr. Global yield, for once?

Turkey, Russia, and the Geopolitical Endgame of Eurasia

If Turkey decides to turn to Russia and away from the West, it could become the first breach in the wall of containment established after World War II.

If you’ve been paying attention to how badly American and Western foreign policy has performed, you might be wondering just how close Russia and China are getting towards their own geopolitical goals. Forming an alliance with Erdogan in Turkey is a very big step forward.

Turkey warns EU it is making ‘serious mistakes’ over failed coup

Unhappy with the weird, weak response of the West following the latest coup, and the refusal to extradite the alleged leader of said coup to Turkey, Erdogan is now threatening to quit the bidding process to join the EU. Publicly supporting reinstating the death penalty after the coup, a punishment outlawed by the European Convention on Human Rights, it would appear that Erdogan has no intention of mending relations with Europe. He has begun meeting with Putin, has apologized for the downing of a Russian jet and even offered full compensation to the Russian families of the deceased pilots. After reversing policy on Assad in Syria, Turkey is now normalizing relations with Russia. So why is this so important? It all started 112 years ago.

At the turn of the 20th century, the plotters and strategists of foreign policy were still obsessed with controlling sea power and maritime trade with their giant naval fleets. But in 1904, a geographer from the University of Oxford named Halford Mackinder would lay down the foundations for what would soon become global geopolitical strategy. In the Heartland Strategy,  Mackinder stated that the “World Island,” or the combined continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa, represents the catbird seat of the world. These three continents hold the most plentiful and varied combination of natural resources and human populations, and the area of Eurasia in particular was a vital corridor for trade between undeveloped but resource-rich third world countries and the heavily industrialized first world nations. Eurasia was also the door to Africa, a veritable cornucopia of untouched natural resources. But the Heartland part of Heartland Strategy refers to the massive, contiguous land mass spanning between Eastern Europe, Iran, Northern China, all the way to Eastern Siberia. Mackinder considered this area to be the most tactically advantageous with icy seas to the north deterring naval invasions and the bare expanses of Siberia sapping any land campaign. Mackinder’s Heartland, in other words, was the land already being occupied by Russia.

Although it was Mackinder who really first envisioned global strategy, it would be his disciple, Nicholas Spykman, who would deal with the Russians (the Soviet Union) directly. It was Spykman who encouraged the end of isolationism and the establishment of a balance of powers, with the US at the top, after the conclusion of World War II. This detente strategy was centered on the Heartland/Soviet Union, but Spykman placed less emphasis on sea power. Rather than considering a military strategy against the Heartland, Spykman contemplated co-opting the nations surrounding the Heartland, anticipating the expansionist policy of the Soviets, and playing the soft power card that imbues Western foreign policy to this day. This is the groundwork for what would later become George Kennan’s successful containment policy against Communism.

Spykman is a seminal figure in American geopolitical strategy. Having inspired both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his theories and ideas are still very relevant over 70 years later. Eastern Europe and Eurasia are still critically important control points, and just about every effort has been made to keep Russia contained. The official US support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan was an effort to repel the Soviets from the region, and the strategic funding of Wahhabism, Salafism and Islamic fundamentalism by the West and its regional allies has been an effort to keep them out further. The West has never wanted Russia in Europe for fear of a German-Russian Alliance, and the solidification of the Heartland and Eastern Europe. During the Russo-Turkish war in 1878, arguably the war that dealt the death blow to the Ottoman Empire, Russia regained its lost territories from the Ottomans and then began pushing toward Europe up through Constantinople. Britain became so panicked they sent a fleet of warships to stop the Russians before their armies could reach the city. The British and Germans forced the Russians to accept the Ottoman Empire’s truce, and proceeded to split up the Balkan states (now know as “Balkanization”) to reduce the reach of Russia’s influence.

These latest developments between Erdogan and Putin could be seen to represent a continuation of Russia’s expansion from the Russo-Turkish war. If Turkey decides to turn to Russia and away from the West, it could become the first breach in the wall of containment established after World War II. Russia’s goal has not changed, it still wants to gain control over the Eurasian corridor, open up the Middle East for oil exploitation, and integrate the region into the continent-spanning New Silk Road Initiative.

Russia and Turkey Could Form a ‘Big Eurasia’ Axis

Russia and China are now winning the soft power culture strategy, which is ironic considering how the strategy originated in the West and from Zbigniew Brzezinski in particular. Now, Brzezinski’s Trilateral Commission toadies are grasping at straws and Henry Kissinger broke ranks with the establishment to meet with Putin in February and Trump in May. Kissinger, who was Nixon’s Secretary of State and specialist in detente and balance of power strategy, may be suggesting a policy opposed to the uni-polar policies of the Globalists in Washington, London and Berlin.

After Kissinger’s meeting with Putin in February, the Obama administration, the “most transparent administration in history,” announced the very next month that they would declassify certain documents pertaining to the military junta ruling 1970’s Argentina. Guess what was recently declassified:

Kissinger hindered US effort to end mass killings in Argentina, according to files

Could this be the start of another one of the Globalists’ smear campaigns? It wouldn’t surprise me at all.

After Rejecting the EU, Will Britain Reject Climate Change Too?

The purpose of all of this consensus building is not as a means to an end, it’s the forming of a consensus itself that is the goal.

If the leaders of the Western world aren’t already stressed out about the Brexit decision a little over a month ago, they will be absolutely tearing their hair out at the possibility of the “Clexit.”

Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with ‘Clexit’

With widespread dissent against EU immigration policy already creating nasty geopolitical blow back with Turkey and Southern Europe, a wholesale rejection of the climate change argument is yet another potential sociopolitical contagion that the West is going to have to contain. Climate change acceptance is a crucial component of the soft power cultural revolution the West has been operating since the end of the Cold War, an operation that has began to seriously lose steam in the years following 9/11 and the Iraq War.

So what’s the problem with climate change? Well, there are a few red flags that are apparent from the outset to anybody who is paying attention. Without even looking at the facts or the reasoning, a close look at the language of the debate is somewhat revealing, if off-putting. One will notice a lot of alarmism, oversimplifications, divisive rhetoric, and silencing and shaming tactics. The actual academic, scientific argument, all of those scientific studies and whitepapers laced with technical terms and jargon, are not an actual argument, but an appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment as nobody but them can translate and comprehend their own theories and ideas. Without a real, understandable argument to convince the laymen, oversimplified rhetoric is needed. Hence the term itself “climate change,” which is a description of an ongoing process rather than something explicitly new. It is broadly similar to “Earth rotating,” or “moon orbiting” in its all-encompassing vagueness. No need to get bogged down in debate over the finer details, or any debate, really. The other oversimplification is the 97% scientific consensus figure. Notwithstanding the fact that referencing a poll is not a real argument but an appeal to popularity and the bandwagon approach, the scientists taking the poll were asked to simply acknowledge whether or not humans have had an effect on the climate of the planet. Fair enough. But none of the scientists were asked about how urgent or dire the threat of climate change is. If one were to poll the appropriate scientists for a consensus on “imminent climate change apocalypse,” there would not be a 97% consensus. So what’s up with the alarmism? How does the time metric factor into all of this? We’ll cover that later.

There are a few finer points that go unnoticed in the rancor of the debate. The very fact that there is a scientific consensus on any aspect of climate change is exceptional and worth noting on its very own. Considering the interpretation of the Greenland ice cores samples, the Earth has been through some dramatic, actually scary climate changes just in the past 20,000 years or so. Scientists have not reached a consensus, or even a solid theory on why the Earth entered, and just as abruptly exited, the last major ice age.

greenland-18kyr

But the biggest anomaly in this mess of a cultural conversation is the question of why there is even a debate in the first place. If the rhetoric is true, and the threat of climate change is truly grave, why even wait for a consensus? Why not just ignore the naysayers and go save the world? The leaders of the Western world are not, and have never been, in the habit of justifying, let alone asking for consent, for their decisions and policies in response to strategic geopolitical realities. They never asked for consent on the war on terror and the surveillance state. They never asked for consent for the financial bailouts and the infringement of our civil liberties. They usually don’t care about what you think, so why do they care now?

The purpose of all of this consensus building is not as a means to an end, it’s the forming of a consensus itself that is the goal. In other words, the widespread rejection of oil consumption, and therefore, an end to buying and trading on the global oil markets, is the true geopolitical goal of this western soft power strategy. With Russia and China entering the oil markets, setting up the BRICS system, and threatening the petrodollar hegemony the US has enjoyed since the Nixon days, a change had to be made. In response, the western bankers dumped oil stocks from their portfolios and have begun funding alternative energy. Giving the oil industry away to China and Russia meant that the value of the dollar had to be pegged onto another commodity. I believe food was chosen as that commodity and the GMO process has sought to create crops that are hardier, longer lasting, and more bountiful than normal to make for a more stable trading commodity.

So why hasn’t this plan worked? It’s because the soft power strategy relies on actually having something that people want, IE the carrot rather than the stick. The GMO carrots of the West, and their bee-killing pesticides, have not gone over well. There are now 38 countries who have banned GMO food or products, compared to the 28 who have accepted them. Russia is also investing in agriculture to offer a regular alternative to GMO crops. Worse yet, the western bankers are prepared to leave oil but have no widespread alternative energy infrastructure or framework to offer to the world. Sure, electric-powered cars are common now, but the electricity powering your home probably comes from a massive coal-fired power plant. Maritime trade, a crucial component to every economy, still uses a huge amount of fossil fuels everyday. The globalists in Washington, London, and Berlin have painted themselves into a corner. For the first time in a long time, the music is going to stop and it will be the globalists who won’t have a chair to sit in.

This explains the alarmism, the decisive rhetoric, and the building of consensus for the sake of consensus. It’s clear that the West needs the climate change dialectic to work, otherwise Russia and China win the soft power game with their lucrative offers of oil exploitation and the eclipse of the petrodollar. Therefore, geopolitics demands that the “climate denier” be done away with, and the rhetoric is cranked up to the max setting. The very term “denier” denotes either a mental problem or ulterior motives, suggesting a lack of virtue or a lack or morality on those given the epithet. It’s a shaming tactic, and it is not scientific in any way as science has always valued a plurality of ideas. All of the shaming, intellectual bullyism, and mind games have the opposite of their intended effect. Rather than acquiescing, people have become suspicious and combative. And for good reason, in my opinion. Will climate change denial spread like a contagion in Europe? I seriously doubt it, but the response of the Western elites have shown just how desperate and out of touch they have become. Their only option is to spread divisive rhetoric in order to divide and obfuscate the argument, and hold what little ground they still have.