Saturday, June 21, 2014

Bretton Woods II and George Soros

Valentin KATASONOV | 22.06.2014 | 00:00

The expression «Bretton Woods II» is becoming more popular, and everyone has their own understanding of this vague formula. Some are nostalgic for the gold standard, while others would like to return to John Keynes’ idea of creating and introducing a supranational currency like the ‘bancor’, or using the special drawing rights issued in small amounts by the IMF in 1970 for the same purpose. There are also those who believe that Bretton Woods II will be fundamentally different from the American and British projects discussed in 1944, and that the world should consist of several regional currency zones. 
The expert community introduced the idea of a Bretton Woods II at the end of the 20th century. The Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee, headed by a certain Marc Uzan, was set up in 1994 on the back of the conference’s 50 year anniversary. At an official level, the idea of a Bretton Woods II was first expressed by the Italian Senator Oskar Peterlini. At the height of the 2009 financial crisis, Peterlini officially presented a «Motion for the reorganisation of the international currency system: the new Bretton Woods» to the Italian Senate. The document was approved by a large number of deputies in the upper house. Although the document mentioned nothing about a return to gold, it pointed out the need to control the issue of money, and the need to link it to real assets and commodities rather than financial assets. Attention was also focused on the fact that the world needs a financial system with fixed (constant) exchange rates and restrictions on the free cross-border movement of venture capital. 
At the G20 meetings in Washington in November 2008 and London in April 2009, where ways out of the global financial crisis were discussed, the expression «Bretton Woods II» was also heard more than once. In the midst of the financial crisis, radical proposals were put forward at G20, G8, G7 and other similar forums on the restructuring of the global monetary and financial system. There was also talk of the need to convene a global «New Bretton Woods» conference at the UN, where it was expected that a number of important international agreements would be entered into, including: 1) a Global Economic Charter based on the proposals of German Chancellor Angela Merkel; 2) a Global Energy Charter put forward by the leaders of net energy-exporting countries; and 3) major amendments to the UN Charter, including the establishment of a Financial Security Council. As soon as the threat of the global financial crisis had passed, however, political leaders immediately forgot about the «New Bretton Woods» projects. 
At the end of the 20th century, the illusion emerged that the world might become unipolar and be controlled by Washington, and Pax Americana was built under the guise of globalisation. Today, however, Washington is losing its influence in the world, and chances are there will be no repetition of Bretton Woods. 
George Soros’ New Bretton Woods
At the same time, it is possible to talk about a new Bretton Woods as the resuscitation of the project put forward by John Keynes 70 years ago that gained little support from those present. The most well-known and open supporter of this Bretton Woods alternative is financial speculator George Soros. Back in November 2009, at the peak of the global financial crisis, the billionaire announced the preparation of a «New Bretton Woods» conference, and in April 2011, Soros made sure the conference took place. Details about it are few and far between. Soros paid $50 million to assemble around 200 academics, businessmen and state leaders in New Hampshire under the aegis of his Institute of New Economic Thinking (INET). The meeting included such well-known figures as the former chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Paul Volcker, former British Prime MinisterGordon Brown, Nobel Laureate and a former vice president of the World BankJoseph Stiglitz, and renowned economist and director of The Earth InstituteJeffrey Sachs. Soros’ event at Bretton Woods was as secret as the meeting of the Bilderberg Group. It is known, however, that the event took place under the catchword of Keynesian economics. The particular role of China as a pole of the world economy and global politics was discussed, along with the need to move to a supranational currency, establish a global emission centre (global central bank), and restructure the global financial system. 
George Soros as a mouthpiece of the Rothschild clan
It is well known that George Soros is a protégé of the Rothschilds, their mouthpiece. Through the public statements and actions of this financial speculator, renowned for his scandalous behaviour, it is possible to put together some idea of his bosses. The Rothschilds are absolute cosmopolitans, they do not hold on to any kind of national identity, unlike the Rockefellers whom America needs, because the printing press and military-industrial complex it is called upon to protect are located in America. In terms of Soros’ understanding of a global currency, therefore, then it is more likely a combination of a supranational currency and gold. 
Soros has repeatedly declared that he sees China as the model for a new global financial order in place of the US. Soros has referred to the US as a burden on the global economy because of the falling dollar, noting the need for a new global currency in the form of the IMF’s special drawing rights. Soros is sometimes regarded as an advocate of John Keynes’ ideas, but this misguided thinking arises from the fact that Soros is a critic of the market, believing it cannot be a self-regulating mechanism. In truth, Soros is against the state and state regulation. He is an advocate of regulating the economy by means of major corporations and banks. Such regulation may be supplemented by regulation from supranational bodies. The institutes of the European Union, which Soros also had a hand in creating, may serve as examples of such bodies. Soros does not like the European Central Bank, the European Commission and other bodies of European integration because they provide some kind of economic efficiency and improve people’s lives; he likes them because they are bringing the death of nation states closer, thus clearing a space for monopolies and banks. 
George Soros makes no secret of the fact that he does not like America. Not because it wages destructive wars around the world, or because of the country’s huge social polarisation, or because its prisons contin more than two million people, with a further four or five millions American who were sentenced to imprisonment currently at large because the country does not have enough prisons, or because the US organised an all-out surveillance of every telephone conversation in America. Soros does not like America because it still retains far too many attributes of a state. This is why Soros was one of Obama’s main sponsors during the pre-election presidential campaign. This also explains what initially seem to be certain illogical decisions and acts of the White House’s current occupant that are troubling the real patriots of America... 
Properly speaking, Soros is an advocate of financial capitalism. Exactly the same capitalism that Austrian socialist Rudolf Hilferding, who took financial capitalism to mean bankocracy, or the dictatorship of banks, wrote about a century ago. This model of society is extremely reminiscent of a concentration camp. 
While on the subject of Soros, one more Rothschild figure comes to mind – former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Like Soros, he also dislikes America and the American dollar, and is working on reducing the role of the green paper. Among other things, it is well known that just before military action began against Libya in 2011, Strauss-Kahn met with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and gave his support to the idea of introducing a regional currency – the gold dinar. This naturally displeased those in charge of the Federal Reserve System’s printing presses and served as the reason for the scandalous resignation of Strauss-Kahn and, slightly later, NATO aggression against Libya. 
The new world financial order «in a broad cultural context»
The Rothchilds do not like national currencies, which they see as an anachronism of the 20th century; they interfere with the creation of a world government. In order to get rid of national currencies more quickly, the nation state needs to be destroyed, and to accomplish this, every cultural and moral foundation of society must be undermined as much as possible. Observing Soros is evidence that the billionaire is promoting the cultural degeneration of mankind. Soros supports the rights of the «oppressed minorities» to abortion, atheism, the legalisation of drugs, sexual enlightenment, euthanasia, feminism, single-sex marriages and so on. He is in favour of globalisation in all its manifestations, mass immigration, and birth control. He promotes these ideas around the world through his Open Society Institute, which has branches in 60 countries (total expenditure on the institute’s activities is nearly $600 million a year). There are many other political, financial and media veterans who help Soros with his propaganda work, including the former president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Jacques Attali. The striking similarity between the philosophies of Soros and Attali is astonishing. Both are cosmopolitans to the core, both put their trust in the organisational role of banks, both fiercely attack what there is left of culture and religion, both talk about the need for a global central bank, a global armed forces and so forth. It feels as if they have a common boss and client. 
I do not know whether the conversations that took place at the Mount Washington hotel in April 2011 went beyond the usual agenda of global financial forums, but there is no doubt that the ‘broad-minded’ Soros focussed on destroying the foundations of traditional society. In his opinion piece published six months before the New Bretton Woods conference, Soros wrote: «Reorganising the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system.» The billionaire is expressing the world view of his bosses for whom money, finance, exchange rates, gold fixing, securities, loans, derivatives, exchanges and other attributes of the modern financial system are just the means, not the goal. The goal is world power.

ISIS Domestic Terror Threat Created by CIA and U.S. Military

CIA facilitated 9/11 terrorist visa mill in Saudi Arabia By  Kurt Nimmo

Global Research, June 20, 2014
Eli Lake, writing for The Daily Beast, in other words Newsweek, warns that Americans fighting in Syria may soon return home and pose a serious terror threat.
“The problem, U.S. counter-terrorism and intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast, is that there are just so many jihadists with Western passports traveling to fight in Syria that they worry some of them may slip back into the United States without being detected,”
Lake writes.
He then quotes Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, who told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March hundreds of terrorists have Western passports and they “could return to their home countries to commit violence on their own initiative or participate in al Qaeda-directed plots.”
CIA’s Saudi Visa Mill
Prior to the September 11, 2001, attack the CIA arranged passports and visas for veterans of its covert war in Afghanistan. This was confirmed by the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Michael Springman, who told then BBC journalist Greg Palast in November, 2001, he “was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants” who were allowed to enter the United States.
“What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets,” Springman said.
Springman talked about this CIA terrorist visa factory with Alex Jones in February, 2010:
Months before the September 11 attacks Shayna Steinger, a consular official, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers at the consulate in Jeddah. A State Department memo states Steinger issued 11 visas to the hijackers, but one additional visa was issued by a second consular officer.
Terrorists Trained by the U.S. Military
Earlier this week, Aaron Klein, reporting for WorldNetDaily, revealed that members of ISIS fighting against the al-Assad government in Syria were trained by U.S. military instructors in Jordan. According to Jordanian officials, the trainees “were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.”
ISIS emerged from the ranks of al-Qaeda in Iraq and is considered more militant and extremist than al-Qaeda.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was reported – and subsequently relegated to the memory hole – that a number of the purported hijackers were “trained in strategy and tactics” at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama, according to Newsweek.
CIA Created Terrorists
The CIA has a long history of hands-on experience with terrorists who have allegedly attacked the United States. Ramzi Yousef, the supposed mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned Bojinka attack, was recruited by the CIA and fought with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Ali Mohamed, a major in the Egyptian army recruited by the CIA,
“trained most of al-Qaeda’s top leadership – including bin Laden and [Ayman] al-Zawahiri – and most of al-Qaeda’s top trainers. Mohamed taught surveillance, counter-surveillance, assassinations, kidnapping, codes, ciphers and other intelligence techniques,”
U.S. prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told the 9/11 Commission in 2004. “For five years he was moving back and forth between the US and Afghanistan.”
“It’s impossible the CIA thought he was going there as a tourist. If the CIA hadn’t caught on to him, it should be dissolved and its budget used for something worthwhile,” Nabil Sharef, a university professor and former Egyptian intelligence officer, told The Wall Street Journal in November, 2001.
Returning members of ISIS, now hyped as the next wave of domestic terror, are not tourists, either. If, as predicted by a range of offcials, including Rep. Peter King and Sen. Lindsey Graham, ISIS attacks inside America it will be part of a larger plan to expand and extend the war on terror and put the finishing touches on the surveillance and police state in America.
This apparatus is not designed to protect against al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorists. The purpose is to spy on the American people, who are the real enemy, and make certain they cannot effectively challenge the political monopoly of the global elite.

Chocolate King’s «Peace Plan» With a Hard Centre

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 21.06.2014 | 00:00

Petro Poroshenko, the billionaire oligarch who won the Ukrainian presidential election with a dubious majority last month, seems to be relying heavily now on his skills as a confectionery magnate. The man known as the Chocolate King, owing to his past industrial dealings, presented a unilateral ceasefire plan this week in a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Poroshenko said that state forces under this command would call a halt to military operations «shortly». He said his peace plan would involve an amnesty for armed separatists in Southeastern Ukraine, constitutional reforms and national dialogue. But, like many confectionery products, Poroshenko’s peace offering comes with lots of pretty wrapping and marketing, but with little in the way of substantial quality.

More than two days after the Chocolate King unveiled his peace plan, civilian centers in Eastern cities and towns of Lugansk, Donetz, Slavyansk and Kramatorsk are still coming under fire from tanks and fighter aircraft. Added to this indiscriminate violence ordered by Poroshenko’s regime in Kiev, civilians in the East and South of the country are suffering severe privations of no water and electricity, as well as from food and medical shortages. Even hospitals have not been spared in the withering so-called «anti-terror» onslaught against the ethnic Russian population, which continues unabated. That onslaught is now more than eight weeks old, with a death toll approaching 400; and more than 70 per cent of those casualties are civilian, according to UN figures reported this week.

During Poroshenko’s inauguration speech on June 8, he vowed to «bring peace» to the country «within one week». He won a presidential election held on May 25 with only 55 per cent of votes. But the national turnout for that election was less than 45 per cent. More than half of Ukraine’s eligible voters did not even bother casting their vote. In large parts of the country’s East and South, the turnout was less than 10 per cent. The election was held under the auspices of a regime that seized power illegally earlier in February from the then lawfully elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who has since fled to Russia under threat of death from the fascist coup organizers.

US President Obama hailed the election of Poroshenko as «a wise choice made by the Ukrainian people». Obama went on to endorse the oligarch figure as a peacemaker and reformist.

Since Poroshenko’s election and much-vaunted inauguration speech, the violence meted out by pro-Kiev military forces and their assorted neo-Nazi paramilitaries belonging to the Right Secktor has escalated. A Russian Investigative Committee this week said it had probed hundreds of serious violations committed by Kiev forces, including the bombing of civilian homes, schools and kindergartens. The Russian committee said it was opening criminal proceedings against the acting Interior Minister in Kiev, Arsen Avakov, and the appointed governor of Dnepropetrovsk, Igor Kolomoysky. Both are charged with the deliberate targeting of civilians and the running of death squads.

Meanwhile, Poroshenko has ordered military forces to seal off the border with Russia, with the claim that the move is aimed at stopping the alleged flow of weapons and mercenaries from Russia into the restive eastern region of Ukraine. Moscow has consistently denied any involvement in Ukraine’s conflict.

Suspicions are deep among ethnic Russian populations in the South and East that Poroshenko is not preparing a peace initiative, but rather an intensification of the two-month-old offensive.

Denis Pushilin, a leader of the self-declared People’s Republic of Donetz, slammed Poroshenko’s peace plan as «idiotic». He said that he had received no details of how the plan would be implemented and that he had only learned of the proposal through media reports. Pushilin added that Kiev’s agenda amounted to: «Lay down your arms, so that we can capture you unarmed.»

A self-defence militia commander in Donetz, Mikhail Verin, was reported as saying that his men would not be surrendering their weapons. He told media that Poroshenko was «deceiving Russia and the European Union» while playing for time to consolidate forces for further attacks.

Another member of the defence militia dismissed the amnesty proposed by Poroshenko. The man, dressed in military fatigues and carrying a rifle, shrugged with resignation, saying: «Where will we go? They [the Kiev regime] have already said they will put us all in concentration camps.»

Indeed, the premise of the Kiev peace proposal marketed by Poroshenko this week is based on an insidious false premise. Poroshenko said the ceasefire would be short-lived and the purpose was «to allow Russian mercenaries to leave our territory». This premise promotes the propaganda myth put out by Kiev and amplified by Washington and its NATO allies that the conflict in the East and South of Ukraine is all down to Russian subversion and annexation of territory by stealth.

This false narrative lets the real perpetrators of the unrest in Ukraine off the hook – the Western-backed coup plotters who seized power and who have gone on to violently repress any population that resists their illegal rule.

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen reiterated this misinformation this week when he said: «We call on Russia to stop arming pro-Russian armed gangs and to stop destabilizing the situation in Eastern Ukraine».

So, what happens when the armed defence militia of the newly formed People’s Republics of Donetz and Lugansk refuse to lay down arms at the gunpoint of Kiev forces? What happens when these men and women, who were born and reared on those lands, refuse to pack up their «mercenary gear» and «go back to Russia» as they are portrayed to come from?

That’s when the Chocolate King’s «peace plan» will appear much less a box of niceties of reform, dialogue, amnesty and ceasefire – and more of what it really is – a deadly criminal offensive with a very hard centre.

Russian checkpoint on Ukraine border comes under fire (RT)

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 21.06.2014 | 00:22
Moscow demands explanation from Kiev authorities after a Russian checkpoint on the border between two counties came under shelling on Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
On Friday, the Russian checkpoint of Novoshakhtinsk in Rostov region was shelled by mortars, the Russia’s Border Service said. The rounds came from the Ukrainian side. A Russian customs service employee was seriously injured in the fire.
The shelling occurred as Lugansk self-defense forces clashed with Ukrainian military joined by the National Guard, who launched mortar fire that in the end hit the checkpoint, said spokesman of the Border Service in the Rostov Region, Vasily Malayev.
While the main target of the shelling was the Ukrainian border checkpoint Dolzhansky, controlled by the militia, several mortars hit Russia’s territory, he added.
The video that was posted on Youtube shows the refugee camp near Novoshakhtinsk in Rostov region. One can hear the shelling in the beginning and in the end of the video.
The Russian checkpoint was severely damaged, especially its engineer constructions and communication lines, Malayev said.
“Our employee was injured and has been transported to the hospital of Novoshakhtinsk. His condition is evaluated as rather serious,” said the Custom’s Service.
Russia’s Investigative Committee has launched a criminal investigation into the attempted murder of citizens by shelling Russian territory.
Following the incident, the Russian Foreign Ministry filed a protest note to Kiev demanding an immediate explanation and investigation into the shelling.
“It is a direct provocation, which aims to prevent the implementation of the Geneva agreement on de-escalation of the Ukrainian conflict,” the ministry said.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense refuted statements the Ukrainian army shelled a Russian checkpoint.
“Due to proximity to the state border with Russia, the Ukrainian military does not fire from artillery or mortars," the statement on its website read.