Russia wins control of Turkmen gas

Print Friendly

exxon_mobil

Of course, George and Dick may look forward to seeing them all in hell, but I don’t think it’s quite going to turn out that way. I’m inclined to say the world has had enough of US shock and awe, bullying, lies, preemptive strikes, and the likes.

By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor

Jul 31, 2008

Simulposted with Online Journal

In the race for Caspian gas, Russia has won and the United States has lost, according to an article in Wednesday’s Asia Times.

In his article, Russia takes control of Turkmen (world?) gas, M K Bhadrakumar, a former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, wrote, “From the details coming out of Ashgabat in Turkmenistan and Moscow over the weekend, it is apparent that the great game over Caspian energy has taken a dramatic turn. In the geopolitics of energy security, nothing like this has happened before. The United States has suffered a huge defeat in the race for Caspian gas. The question now is how much longer Washington could afford to keep Iran out of the energy market.”

And I ask has the War on Terror that supported the appropriation by force of Caspian energy and its proposed pipelines been lost as well?

After all, it was years before 9/11 that the US had designs on conquering Afghanistan to lay those pipelines and acquire that gas and oil, one way or the other. September 11 coincidentally (?) proved to be the reason for a preemptive war with Afghanistan, purportedly to search for Osama bin Laden, the alleged ringleader of the purported Muslim hijacker-cabal, who commanded this mega disaster from a cave with his laptop and kidney dialysis machine. This is the administration’s myth, swallowed by many, but not the few awake at the switch.

===========================================================================

Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, Tant Mieux, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to JMiller@bestcyrano.org

============================================================================

Gazprom, it turns out, Russia’s Exxon and then some, penned two major deals in Ashgabat last Friday, sketching a plan for purchase of Turkmen gas. The first one deals with pricing for Russian purchases for the next 20 years. The second deal makes Gazprom the sponsor for local Turkmen energy projects. The two deals slam-dunk control over Turkmen gas exports, and without killing a soul or destroying a square foot of property.

Gazprom, which was headed by present Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for eight years, 2000 to May 2008, has taken a bold step that must have had the approval of the top guns in the Kremlin. Medvedev also took a side trip to Ashgabat on July 4-5 (what an irony) on his way to the G-8 summit get together with Turkmenistan officials in Hokkaido, Japan.

Interestingly, the Friday agreements are not designed for Gazprom to profit from reselling Turkmen gas and may lead to similar conditions with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the two other major gas-rich countries in Central Asia. So old-fashioned profiteering was not the reason for Gazprom’s actions. You could say, the Kremlin had a “grand strategy.”

Coincidentally, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin visited Bejing over the weekend to begin with his Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier Wang Oishan, an “energy initiative,” or “energy negotiation mechanism.” It would seem Central Asia and China as well as Russia have gotten hip to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard dreams of conquering the Middle East and Central Asian gas and oil resources in the march to world hegemony and simply bested Zbig and his former neocon friends. In fact, the first round of talks about this deal happened in Beijing on Saturday. Initially, there was a media blackout of the meeting, then Beijing broke the news via the government-owned China Daily on Monday.

China Daily didn’t elaborate but mentioned the “good talks” as “a good beginning.” and commented, “It seems that [a] shift of Russia’ energy export policy is under way. Russia might turn its eyes from the Western countries to the Asia-Pacific region . . . The cooperation in the energy sector is an issue of great significance for Sino-Russian relations . . . the political and geographic closeness of the two countries would put their energy cooperation under a safe umbrella and make it a win-win deal. China-Russia are at their best times . . . The two sides settled their lingering border disputes, held joint military exercises, and enjoyed rapidly increasing bilateral trade.” Well, good for them. Peace at last somewhere.

As Bhadrakumar points out, the blowback of this deal is “serious for the US and EU campaign to get their Nabucco gas pipeline project going.” With no Turkmen gas, that pipeline is a pipedream. And the US strategy of cutting Europe’s need on Russian energy makes no sense. So now, Washington’s bad dream, that Europe’s needs may depend on Iranian gas supplies, has come true. Turkey has even offered to mediate the Iran-US conflict.

Ouch, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. You’ve been check mated on the Grand Chessboard. But then, as the reporter points out, “The geopolitics of energy makes strange bedfellows.”

Russia’s got the gas, and Tehran sees its way to integrate with Europe; though Russia’s Turkmen gas control can’t be a total plus for Iran. Tehran had pushed for its own deal with Ashgabat to distribute their gas via Iranian pipelines.

Since Russia will have a hand in pricing, the era of cheap gas for Europe may be ending. Russia has put itself at the head of the pack in the world gas market, with a gas cartel in the offing. So, while we were shooting people, shocking and awing entire countries, Russia, exercising diplomacy and common sense shrewdness, was making deals that people felt comfortable with, and walked away a winner.

On top of that, Russian oil and gas companies are now moving into Latin America, where the US has not made itself particularly loved, though it is our backyard. During Chavez’s visit to Moscow on July 25, Russia’s big three energy companies, Gazprom, LUKoil and TNL-BP, penned agreements with the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company PDVSA. They will “replace” America oil biggies, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips in Venezuela. Ouch, ouch!

As the deal was signed, Medvedev said, “We have not only approved these agreements but have also decided to supervise their implementation.” Chavez answered, “I look forward to seeing all of you in Venezuela.” Of course, George and Dick may look forward to seeing them all in hell, but I don’t think it’s quite going to turn out that way. I’m inclined to say the world has had enough of US shock and awe, bullying, lies, preemptive strikes, and the likes.

Hopefully, Americans have had enough of trillions of dollars of their taxes spent on two wars; enough of the lost of 9/11, the tragedy engineered by the government to start the War on Terror; enough of the more than 4,000 American soldiers’ deaths, and the million-plus Iraqis and Afghans lost. In fact, this may provide some kind of wake-up call for Washington, or even realization that this Russian pact (not war) is the final nail in the administration’s coffin. So it goes, hopefully.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

4 comments on “Russia wins control of Turkmen gas
  1. the anglosaxon conspiracy to loot the world must be smashed to pieces.

    6th march,2007.

    BBC comment(atleast her washingtons correspondent’s comments) on scooter LibBy’s gulity verdit on 6th march,2007–“it does not matter to white house as long as iraq war turns out to be all right”!! for BBc illegal occupation of iraq and killing of million civilians does not matter -it will be al r ight for american occupation. This is human rights and democracy ala BBc and british propaganda.
    see and watch todays bbc and realize how much bbc and other british propaganda machinary is responsible for bush war crimes.
    He also assuredly told that this “white house is quite safe”as wished for by the british ofocurse. during gore-bush florida tussle bbc was advocating gore to leave bush alone as britian was waiting for american missile defence to come her shore soon and so no delay in small matter of who should be presidentof usa be allowed.d-bit belicve it? look at all british propaganda between 1st novembr till 20th novembr of 2000.
    it is high time that engish spies in american establishment be eliminated..

    it is high time that these english spies in usa are taken care of .

    also during and after the gulf war(first iraq war) the british were taking full creidit for insitagating bush 1 to start and persue war agasint iraq. the reason war criminal blair diidnto take full creidt for iraq war 2 was because that went sour(failure has no fathers claming thiers). itis a fact that merciless war done by america has benen perpetauted by the british agents inside america( and not some indepdnet israli agents as claimed-it jsut so happend that only know israli interest happend to coinside with those of english parasites -that is why war on and for behalf of england is being waged by america the world over.
    By the way in IN ’88 when Dalai lama, at the height of Tibetan disturbances, visited west, the then british prime minister refused to meet Him. Later on with the demise of Russia and usefulness of China gone and with manipulation to keep power in Hong Kong somehow intact, the same british media and government ,like dog, started barking at China. It is interesting that amnesty international selectively targets those very countries( as it did china after cold war) who are out of favour (because they would not be a british stooge) of the british media and govt. This is not surprising as amnesty international is the creation of british govt, and british media. england with the most appalling record of human rights in last 200 years of her evil rule, needed some organisation to keep the others from charging england off her past and current evil practices. In other words it went for aggressive posture in propaganda war so that others can be demoralized and stopped from pointing out the real evil which is england. That is why amnesty international is one armour of the british lies to exploit the rest of the world. Amnesty international must be ignored and an independent human watchdog (which england will simply ignore) created. One purpose of amnesty international is to create an atmosphere for hatred towards the would be victims of british exploitation so that a victim could be blamed to have deserved the consequences. That is why ,now amnesty international sometimes threatens China, sometimes India and etc.
    .

  2. these protestant baptists((and so callled religious fundamentalists and evnagalicals bastards)) are the agents of england inside america and have always been.
    thse baptists are the ones who created civil war for the benefit of british to reconquer america and during attack of britian in 1812 these baptists were acting as enemy agents inside amaerica.
    these baptisat are called patrioit–now what a shame? the southern flag is sympbol of american patriotism when it was really an instrument of treachery to the american independence.

    ” I am afraid the meddling small minded, fearful white boy is indicative of a large group of the amerikan types who still support a corrupt regieme of neo-con syncopants. He and those like him live in suspicion and fear of anyone different from themselves.
    He was once a settler who cut down and burned the forest of New England because he was afraid of the wildlife. He was once a trader who passed out smallpox blankets to the Indians. Then later a buffalo hunter who decimated entire herds and left them to rot on the plains. His grandfather herded Japanese into camps, his father was at MyLai. His brothers are at Abu Graib and Gitmo. Where will he be tommorrow?”

    ” but all non-WASP got (and still get) their time as scapegoat-du-jour: Native, Black, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Latino, and now Middle-Eastern, just to name a few. Along with the scapegoating goes the profiling, which is little more than prejudice and stereotypes made legal.”

    The recent director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, proposed in the New York Times in May 2004 that we should give U.S. presidents the authority to preventively detain U.S. citizens and to engage in “coercive interrogations” should the United States experience another terrorist attack like 9/11. Ignatieff argued that “defeating terror requires violence” and “might also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms,” he said.[1]

    In addition to Harvard’s top human rights academic arguing on behalf of “torture lite,” Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz supports “torture warrants” so that U.S. presidents can torture detainees in so-called “ticking bomb” cases.

    ==================================================================
    britain is the number one parasite nation of this world and is the main eviul brain behind american offensive (perpetual war) everywhere in the world. Why? Because only through american military might can a fourth rate country like england hope to have some influnce in the world.
    and the rest of the world is resopibnsible for this-why has aljarreza engagesd the british journalists like frost in the english version?lokk how much propaganda english eversion al zareeja is making agasint irana nd zimbawe -in otherworlds doing the bidding for british media and british govermnet lies.
    it is high time that thr british are removed forcibly or killed from evrywhere outside britian or may be even inside if they are not goign to stop destrying other nations.
    britian must be deafeated militarily-not a great diffciluty with a coward nation-and must be eliminated as serious challnege to humanity

    (do not belive it? the queen of pirates ugly elizabeth 1 of destitue and pariah state called england made a pact with turks to loot christain ships to weaken to help the turks and weaken christinity in Europe.)
    see this also–(One notable example of such an alliance was Suleyman’s outward support of Lutherans fighting the Pope in the Holy Roman Empire. Suleyman considered the Protestant rejection of icons and papal authority to be closer to Muslim belief than either Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, and his support of Protestantism was one of his key policies in Europe. By encouraging the disunity of Christianity, the Ottomans hoped to decrease the chances of Christian Europe uniting in a Crusade against the Muslim Ottomans. It has been suggested that Ottoman pressure played a decisive role in persuading the Habsburgs to grant several concessions to the Protestants. The Ottoman Empire was thus vital to maintaining the European balance of power in the 16th century.

    http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/ottoman/suleyman.html).

  3. http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=13078

    July 2, 2008
    We, the Salt of the Earth,
    Take Precedence
    by Paul Craig Roberts

    Which country is the rogue nation? Iraq? Iran? Or the United States? Syndicated columnist Charley Reese asks this question in a recently published article.

    Reese notes that it is the U.S. that routinely commits “acts of aggression around the globe.” The U.S. government has no qualms about dropping bombs on civilians, whether they be in Serbia, the Middle East, or Africa. It is all in a good cause – our cause.

    This slaughtering of foreigners doesn’t seem to bother the American public. Americans take it for granted that Americans are superior and that American purposes, whatever they be, take precedence over the rights of other people to life and to a political existence independent of American hegemony.

    The Bush regime has come up with a preemption doctrine that justifies attacking a country in order to prevent the country from possibly becoming a future threat to the U.S. “Threat” is broadly defined. It appears to mean the ability to withstand the imposition of U.S. hegemony. This insane doctrine justifies attacking China and Russia, a direction in which the Republican presidential candidate John McCain seems to lean.

    The callousness of Americans toward the lives of other peoples is stunning. How many Christian churches ask God’s forgiveness for having been rushed into an error that has killed, maimed, or displaced a quarter of the Iraqi population?

    How many Christian churches ask God to give better guidance to our government so that it does not repeat the error and crime by attacking Iran?

    The indifference of Americans to others flows from “American exceptionalism,” the belief that Americans are graced with a special mission to impose their virtue on the rest of the world. Like the French revolutionaries, Americans don’t seem to care how many people they kill in the process of spreading their exceptionalism.

    American exceptionalism has swelled Americans’ heads, filling them with hubris and self-righteousness and making Americans believe that they are the salt of the earth.

    Three recent books are good antidotes for this unjustified self-esteem. One is Patrick J. Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Another is After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation by Giles MacDonogh, and a third is John Pilger’s Freedom Next Time.

    Buchanan’s latest book is by far his best. It is spellbinding from his opening sentence: “All about us we can see clearly now that the West is passing away.” As the pages turn, the comfortable myths, produced by history written by the victors, are swept aside. The veil is lifted to reveal the true faces of British and American exceptionalism: stupidity and deceit.

    Buchanan’s strength is that he lets the story be told by Britain’s greatest 20th-century historians and the memoirs of the participants in the events that destroyed the West’s dominance and moral character. Buchanan’s contribution is to assemble the collective judgment of a hundred historians.

    As I read the tale, it is a story of hubris destroying judgment and substituting in its place blunder and miscalculation. Both world wars began when England, for no sound or sensible reason, declared war on Germany. Winston Churchill was a prime instigator of both wars. He seems to have been a person who needed a war stage in order to be a “great man.”

    The American President Woodrow Wilson shares responsibility with Britain and France for the Versailles Treaty, which dismembered Germany, stripping her of territory and putting millions of Germans under foreign rule, and imposed reparations that Britain’s greatest economist, John Maynard Keynes, correctly predicted to be unrealistic. All of this was done in violation of assurances given to Germany that there would be no reparations or boundary changes. Once Germany surrendered, the assurances were withdrawn, and a starvation blockade forced German submission to the new harsh terms.

    Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together. He was succeeding without war until Churchill provoked Chamberlain into an insane act. Danzig was 95 percent German. It had been given to Poland by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler was negotiating its return and offered in exchange a guarantee of Poland’s frontiers. The Polish colonels, assessing the relative strengths of Poland and Germany, understood that a deal was better than a war. But suddenly, the British Prime Minister issued Poland a guarantee of its existing territory, including Danzig, whose inhabitants wished to return to Germany.

    Buchanan produces one historian after another to testify that British miscalculations and blunders, culminating in Chamberlain’s worthless and provocative “guarantee” to Poland, brought the West into a war that Hitler did not want, a war that destroyed the British Empire and left Britain a dependency of America, a war that delivered Poland, a chunk of Germany, all of Eastern Europe, and the Baltic states to Joseph Stalin, a war that left the Western allies with a 45-year cold war against the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.

    People resist the shattering of their illusions, and many are angry with Buchanan for assembling the facts of the case that distinguished historians have provided.

    Churchill admirers are outraged that their hero is revealed as the first war criminal of World War II. It was Churchill who initiated the policy of terror bombing civilians in noncombatant areas. Buchanan quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: “When Mr. Churchill came into power, one of the first decisions of his government was to extend bombing to the noncombatant area.”

    In holding Churchill to account, Buchanan makes no apologies for Hitler, but the ease with which Churchill set aside moral considerations is discomforting.

    Buchanan documents that Churchill’s plan was to destroy 50 percent of German homes. Churchill also had plans for using chemical and biological warfare against German civilians. In 2001 the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported Churchill’s plan to drop 5 million anthrax cakes onto German pastures in order to poison the cattle and through them the people. Churchill instructed the RAF to consider drenching “the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany” with poison gas “in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention.”

    “It is absurd to consider morality on this topic,” the great man declared.

    Paul Johnson, a favorite historian of conservatives, notes that Churchill’s policy of terror bombing civilians was “approved in cabinet, endorsed by parliament and, so far as can be judged, enthusiastically backed by the bulk of the British people.” Thus, the terror bombing of civilians, which “marked a critical stage in the moral declension of humanity in our times,” fulfilled “all the conditions of the process of consent in a democracy under law.”

    British historian F.J.P. Veale concluded that Churchill’s policy of indiscriminate bombing of civilians caused an unprecedented “reversion to primary and total warfare” associated with “Sennacherib, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane.”

    The Americans were quick to follow Churchill’s lead. Gen. Curtis LeMay boasted of his raid on Tokyo: “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.”

    MacDonogh’s book, After the Reich, dispels the comfortable myth of generous allied treatment of defeated Germany. Having discarded all moral scruples, the allies fell upon the vanquished country with brutal occupation. Hundreds of thousands of women raped; hundreds of thousands of Germans died in deportations; a million German prisoners of war died in captivity.

    MacDonogh calculates that 2.5 million Germans died between the liberation of Vienna and the Berlin airlift.

    Nigel Jones writes in the conservative London Sunday Telegraph: “MacDonogh has told a very inconvenient truth,” a story long “cloaked in silence since telling it suited no one.”

    The hypocrisy of the Nuremberg trials is that the victors were also guilty of crimes for which the vanquished were punished. The purpose of the trials was to demonize the defeated in order to divert attention from the allies’ own war crimes. The trials had little to do with justice.

    In Freedom Next Time, Pilger shows the complete self-absorption of American, British, and Israeli governments whose policies are unimpeded by any moral principle.

    Pilger documents the demise of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia. The Americans wanted Diego Garcia for an air base, so the British packed up the 2,000 residents, people with British passports under British protection, and deported them to Mauritius, one thousand miles away.

    To cover up its crime against humanity, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office created the fiction that the inhabitants, whose families had been living in the archipelago for two or three centuries, were “a floating population.” This fiction, wrote a legal adviser, bolsters “our arguments that the territory has no indigenous or settled population.”

    Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart conspired to mislead the UN about the deported islanders by, in Stewart’s words, ” presenting any move as a change of employment for contract workers – rather than as a population resettlement.”

    Pilger interviewed some of the displaced persons, but emotional blocs will shield patriotic Americans and British from the uncomfortable facts. Rational skeptics can find a second documented account of the Anglo-American rape of Diego Garcia online. An entire people were swept away.

    Two thousand people were in the way of an American purpose – an air base – so we had our British dependency deport them.

    Several million Palestinians are in Israel’s way. Pilger’s documented account of Israel’s crushing of the Palestinians shows that our “democratic ally” in the Middle East is capable of any evil and has no remorse or mercy. Israel is an apt student of the British and American empires’ attitudes toward lesser beings. They simply don’t count.

    Those who are the salt of the earth take precedence over everything.

  4. from —–http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2007/3416where_the_future.html

    This article appears in the April 20, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

    Where the Future Lies
    by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

    British evil designs.

    ” since the days of foolish Louis XIV, it has been a persisting, pro-imperial, Anglo-Dutch Liberal “geopolitical” strategy, sometimes called a Fabian strategy, to lure targeted rivals into wars by which they ruin themselves to Anglo-Dutch Liberal strategic advantage. This was the way in which the British East India Company acquired its private world empire, through the so-called “Seven Years War” culminating in the February 1763 Peace of Paris, and the London determination, from 1763 on, to crush those American colonies which had been crucial in Britain’s war to wrest Canada from France.

    The U.S. War in Indo-China and the current U.S. military operations and postures in Southwest Asia, are typical of the ways in which London has induced the U.S. government to, repeatedly, play the fool in this way. Indeed, many among our Baby Boomers in the U.S. Congress are still playing the role of official dupes of that strategic game.

    World War Three, or its equivalent, is a proposition now on the table, a policy to be openly rejected now, or to be adopted by default. The London-centered, still-as-always-geopolitical intention, is to pit the U.S.A. into a virtual, even an actual, nuclear war against Russia, China, and India. The number of suckers ready to bite that bait, within the U.S. Senate, for example, is more disgusting than it should be considered surprising. A Baby-Boomer fish, running for President or otherwise, that would swallow Gore’s “Global Warming” swindle, is clearly prepared to swallow almost any similarly baited hook.

    The brief, but crucial role of that de facto political boss of the British East India Company, the Eighteenth Century’s Lord Shelburne, in his 1782 accession to the post of Prime Minister, was not only a crucial turning-point of inflection in course of world history; it has crucial relevance for any competent understanding of the strategic crisis of this planet today.

    Not only did Shelburne maneuver the Americans’ allies, the U.S.A., France, and Spain, into separate peace negotiations, but, with the assistance of relevant freemasons under British control, notably the Martinist freemasonry, orchestrated the series of 1782-1789 developments leading into the self-destruction of U.S. ally France, that in a series of events which began with the atrocious farce which the British orchestrated as Philippe Egalité’s July 14, 1789 assault, armed and directed by him personally, at the Bastille. This was the assault conducted ostensibly on behalf of Philippe’s crony Jacques Necker’s candidacy for Prime Minister of Louis XVI’s France.[2] These events included such delicacies as the succession of that Reign of Terror, and that Bonaparte tyranny which Count Joseph de Maistre’s Martinist freemasonry orchestrated as the economic spoiling of continental Europe for British imperial advantage.

    Thus, following the American defeat of London’s Cornwallis, there was a period of more than seventy years, from those France events of 1782-1789 through the U.S. victory over London’s Confederacy in 1865, during which the British Empire’s control over the world’s monetary-financial systems was frequently challenged, but without actual success. However, by the time of the U.S. Philadelphia Centennial celebration of 1876, the U.S. 1865 victory led by President Lincoln over the globally orchestrated, anti-U.S. schemes of Britain’s Lord Palmerston, had created a new situation in the world at large. A new situation had emerged, in which the anti-monetarist American System of political-economy was widely regarded as the available alternative to submitting to the imperial tyranny of the same neo-Venetian Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of monetary system which has dominated the world afresh, since August 1971.[3]

    “Geopolitics” was the name of the British imperial reaction to the post-1865 copying of the key features and intentions of the Hamiltonian American System, among a significant number of nations within the continent of Eurasia, and also spreading into Central and South America. “Geopolitics” meant, in fact, defense of William of Orange’s Anglo-Dutch Liberal strategy for blocking and destroying the threat represented by the rival influence of conceptions and policies, such as those of France’s Jean-Baptiste Colbert, leading into the design for what became the constitutional form of of the U.S.A. economy. The result of President Lincoln’s victory over the British puppet known as the Confederacy, was the outbreak of open warfare under London’s direct supervision of the continuing 1895-1945 Japan policy of war against China, Korea, and Russia, and the London-orchestrated Balkan wars leading into what became known as World War I. Lord Kitchener’s invasion of Sudan has remained an included, featured pivot of British imperial geopolitics, worldwide, to the present-day in Darfur.

    This continuing geopolitical impulse of the post-1865 times, led, thus, into both World War I, and to the initial British sponsorship of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, leading into what became known as World War II. It was the motive for a Franklin-Roosevelt-hating Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s continuing influence, even after his ouster, over the U.S.A. under Roosevelt’s successor, Harry S Truman.[4]

    U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had managed to outflank the early-on Hitler backers in London and Wall Street, to the effect that the United Kingdom had dumped Edward VIII, to join, later, with Roosevelt, and with Stalin, in defeating what would have otherwise become a long world empire under the Hitler system. However, the same London and Wall Streets which Roosevelt had temporarily weaned away from Hitler’s cause, soon showed, under President Harry Truman, that once Hitler were out of the way, it was the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt which London now wished to uproot, even by methods which amounted to a return to some crucial features of the Hitler system.

    Among relevant circles in Boston and Manhattan, most notably, the leading intention at that time, and since, has been to assimilate Boston[5] and Manhattan into London, as early as this might be pulled off. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and the ruinous effects of the U.S. plunge into the trap of a Indo-China war led, thus, to the near-triumph of what President Eisenhower denounced as the “military-industrial complex” represented, today, by the intimate alliance of Prime Minister Tony Blair, Al Gore, and the Bush-Cheney Administration.

    Under the currently ongoing parody of the “Peloponnesian War” in Southwest Asia, by President George W. Bush, Jr., Cheney, and Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, that with the foolish complicity of many leading Sophists among the Democratic Party’s currently leading figures, the wrecking of the U.S. and its economy is nearly completed today. So, Fabian Society agent Al Gore’s “Global Warming” swindle, now added to the already existing mess, has, suddenly, nearly destroyed the U.S. Democratic Party as a viable leading institution—unless we can reverse this awful error now.

    For the moment, a London-directed Al Gore is deployed to induce the U.S. to wreck itself with an insane plunge into Gore’s proposed “Bio-Foolery”; but, do not be so naive as to assume that the powers behind the curtain in London intend to destroy themselves, economically and otherwise. Blair and his like are intended to be dumped, once their assigned role has been, so to speak, “used up.” New policies are on the drafting board for those upcoming times.

    Until recently, there is a great fear within certain Anglo-Dutch Liberal circles, including U.S. figures associated, as Henry A. Kissinger and Felix Rohatyn were, with George Shultz in putting Augusto Pinochet’s mass-murderous, fascist dictatorship into power in Chile. The fear behind pushing the Bush-Cheney Administration into power in Washington, has been, that a new world financial crisis would bring a resurgent patriotic echo of President Franklin Roosevelt back into power. At the moment, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal followers of Prince Philip and the late Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard, manifestly wish, that the virtual national suicide of the U.S.A. be accomplished by the Bush-Cheney Administration. This arrangement, however temporary the intention, has brought the matter to the point, that, apparently, these treasonous fellows have almost finished off the possibility that the U.S.A., or even its memory, could become again an effective obstacle to an Anglo-Dutch Liberal world empire of the sort called “globalization.”
    Both Philippe and Necker were established members of relevant, quarreling international circles of the leading freemasonries of that time. Philippe was already notorious as a British asset during his Paris quarrels with Benjamin Franklin, whereas Necker had married into the same social circles as his wife’s former suitor, Edward Gibbon of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire notoriety. The bloodier features of the French Revolution were steered from the office of Lord Shelburne’s Jeremy Bentham in the British Foreign Office’s “Secret Committee” operations which ran the most significant events, such as the Danton and Marat, and Robespierre of what was called, euphemistically, “the French Revolution.” One today might be tempted to say, “After all, it seems that so little has actually changed!”

    [3] The Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of world monetary system established by the followers of Venice’s “New Party” leader Paolo Sarpi appeared as a new form of attempted world-rule by monetary usury. The American System of political-economy, as revived by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, is defined by the principles of the U.S. Federal Constitution as a credit system, as leading U.S. economists such as Henry C. Carey followed Alexander Hamilton’s principles of national banking on this account.

    Boston’s Harvard University, where British “courtesy agent” in the Confederacy tradition of “The Agrarians,” William Yandell Elliott, had created the Henry A. Kissinger of the Augusto Pinochet affair and Operation Condor, imperfectly, as if from mud, and where Judge Lowell, acting on Lord Shelburne’s behalf, had earlier founded the gentleman’s practice of treason in America.

    The recent director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, proposed in the New York Times in May 2004 that we should give U.S. presidents the authority to preventively detain U.S. citizens and to engage in “coercive interrogations” should the United States experience another terrorist attack like 9/11. Ignatieff argued that “defeating terror requires violence” and “might also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms,” he said.[1]

    In addition to Harvard’s top human rights academic arguing on behalf of “torture lite,” Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz supports “torture warrants” so that U.S. presidents can torture detainees in so-called “ticking bomb” cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Categories

From Punto Press


PuntoPress_DisplayAd_REV

StatCounter

wordpress stats