Stoltenberg admite que Ucrania no fue «capaz de mover la línea del frente» pese a toda la ayuda occidental
Según el secretario general de la alianza, hay un “compromiso muy firme” por parte de los países miembros para “proporcionar apoyo militar y una amplia gama de tipos de armas” a Kiev, a pesar del fracaso de su contraofensiva.
Pese al apoyo militar “sustancial y considerable” brindado por la OTAN durante el último año, Ucrania no fue “capaz de mover la línea del frente”, lo que “refleja el hecho de que nunca debemos subestimar Rusia”, cuya industria militar “está en pie de guerra”, declaró este lunes el secretario general de la Alianza Atlántica, Jens Stoltenberg, en una rueda de prensa.
Además, dijo que existe un “compromiso muy firme” por parte de los países miembros del bloque para “proporcionar apoyo militar y una amplia gama de tipos de armas” a Ucrania, a pesar del fracaso de su contraofensiva. “Lo que veo al viajar y reunirme con los aliados de la OTAN es un compromiso inquebrantable por apoyar a Ucrania, con un nivel sin precedentes de asistencia militar”, afirmó, citando los ejemplos de Alemania y Países Bajos.
Stoltenberg señaló también la necesidad de suministrar a Kiev sistemas de defensa antiaérea para proteger a la población, la infraestructura crítica y la industria militar. “Es enormemente importante hacer lo que los 28 aliados están haciendo para establecer esta coalición de defensa aérea para organizar [y] facilitar más apoyo de defensa aérea”, sostuvo y agregó que los miembros del bloque suministran “otros tipos de armas modernas” a Ucrania.
A mediados de noviembre, Stoltenberg, al comentar el conflicto en Ucrania, expresó que la situación en el frente es más complicada de lo que esperaba la OTAN y aseveró que “es un argumento a favor de un mayor apoyo a Ucrania” para evitar “que gane el presidente Putin”.
El comandante del Ejército de EE.UU. en el Pacífico anunció que el Pentágono desplegará misiles Standard (SM-6) y Tomahawk en la región el año que viene.
El potencial despliegue de misiles de mediano alcance estadounidenses en la región de Asia-Pacífico representa una parte integral de la Estrategia Indo-Pacífico de Washington, que incluye la cuestión de “defender” Taiwán, y sugiere que EE.UU. se está preparando para un posible conflicto militar con China, publica este lunes Global Times con referencia a analistas. Así, el experto militar chino Song Zhongping comentó al medio que el país norteamericano “está decidido a intervenir para lograr sus objetivos estratégicos” en la región.
Estas declaraciones se producen después de que el pasado día 20 el general Charles Flynn, comandante del Ejército de EE.UU. en el Pacífico, anunciara que el Pentágono desplegaría misiles de mediano alcance, incluidos Standard (SM-6) y Tomahawk, en Asia-Pacífico. El general señaló que el Ejército estadounidense ya había probado estos misiles y tiene la intención de “implementar ese sistema” en la región en 2024. “No voy a decir dónde ni cuándo. Pero solo diré que los desplegaremos“, afirmó, citado por el portal Defense One.
En opinión de Song, el SM-6 y el Tomahawk no constituyen una amenaza relevante en un sentido militar y táctico, ya que no se trata de misiles balísticos y son más fáciles de interceptar. No obstante, el experto indica que tal despliegue sería una gran provocación política, ya que desde Pekín han advertido en repetidas ocasiones que “la cuestión de Taiwán está en el núcleo de intereses fundamentales de China y es la primera línea roja que no se debe cruzar en las relaciones China-EE.UU.”.
Por lo tanto, el despliegue de misiles estadounidenses a las puertas de China elevaría considerablemente el riesgo de un conflicto militar entre Pekín y Washington por la cuestión de Taiwán, pero, al parecer, EE.UU. se está preparando para el “peor de los casos”, concluye el experto.
Los investigadores sostienen que los robos no fueron perpetrados por el contingente estadounidense y sospechan la implicación de combatientes locales, informa el portal.
“Múltiples armas sensibles y equipos” bélicos fueron robados de instalaciones militares de EE.UU. ubicadas en Siria e Irak, reportó la semana pasada The Intercept, que refiere a documentos exclusivos sobre las investigaciones criminales a los que tuvo acceso.
De acuerdo con su información, el equipo robado en Irak incluye sistemas de lanzamiento de misiles guiados y drones.
The Intercept señala que los investigadores militares fueron informados en febrero de que 13 drones comerciales fueron robados el año pasado de la instalación de EE.UU. en la ciudad iraquí de Erbil. No se logró determinar quién perpetró el robo del equipo militar, valorado en 162.500 dólares. Además, otra investigación mostró que unidades de equipamiento militar, que incluyen lanzadores de misiles Javelin, fueron robadas en el interior o en su camino a la base militar en Bagdad. El valor estimado de esos implementos bélicos es de casi 480.000 dólares.
De otra parte, los investigadores sostuvieron que los robos no fueron perpetrados por el contingente estadounidense y sospechan la implicación de combatientes locales. “Organizaciones criminales iraquíes y grupos de milicias atacan los convoyes y contenedores para [obtener] armas y equipo”, reza uno de los documentos citados por el portal.
En ese contexto, The Intercept recuerda que previamente, este año, había reportado al menos cuatro robos y un caso de pérdida de armas y equipo militar estadounidense en Irak y Siria, que tuvieron lugar en el período entre 2020 y 2022. El portal indica que se desconoce el número exacto de robos, y agrega que quizás tampoco el Pentágono tiene datos al respecto. Así, el entonces portavoz de la Coalición Internacional contra el Estado Islámico de Irak y el Levante, Kevin T. Livingston, admitió previamente este año que la entidad no tiene datos sobre robos a los militares estadounidenses.
An Intelligence Ministry document revealed by Local Call and +972 shows how the idea of population transfer to the Sinai is reaching official discussions.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on November 1, 2023
***
The Israeli Ministry of Intelligence is recommending the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, according to an official document revealed in full for the first time by +972’s partner site Local Call yesterday.
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry — a small governmental body that produces policy research and shares its proposals with intelligence agencies, the army, and other ministries. It assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in the framework of the current war, and recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. It also calls on Israel to enlist the international community in support of this endeavor. The document, whose authenticity was confirmed by the ministry, has been translated into English in full here on +972.
The existence of the document does not necessarily indicate that its recommendations are being considered by Israel’s defense establishment. Despite its name, the Intelligence Ministry is not directly responsible for any intelligence body, but rather independently prepares studies and policy papers that are distributed to the Israeli government and security agencies for review, but are not binding. The ministry’s annual budget is NIS 25 million and its influence is considered relatively small. It is currently headed by Gila Gamliel, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party.
However, the fact that an Israeli government ministry has prepared such a detailed proposal amid a large-scale military offensive on the Gaza Strip, following Hamas’ deadly assault and massacres in southern Israeli communities on Oct. 7, reflects how the idea of forced population transfer is being raised to the level of official policy discussions. Fears of such plans — which would constitute a serious war crime under international law — have grown in recent weeks, especially after the Israeli army ordered about 1 million Palestinians to evacuate the northern Gaza Strip ahead of escalating bombardment and incremental ground incursions.
The document recommends that Israel act to “evacuate the civilian population to Sinai” during the war; establish tent cities and later more permanent cities in the northern Sinai that will absorb the expelled population; and then create “a sterile zone of several kilometers … within Egypt, and [prevent] the return of the population to activities/residences near the border with Israel.” At the same time, governments around the world, led by the United States, must be mobilized to implement the move.
A source in the Intelligence Ministry confirmed to Local Call/+972 that the document was authentic, that it was distributed to the defense establishment by the ministry’s policy division, and “was not supposed to reach the media.”
‘Make It Clear There Is No Hope of Returning’
The document unequivocally and explicitly recommends transferring Palestinian civilians from Gaza as the desired outcome of the war. The existence of the plan was first reported last week in the Israeli business newspaper Calcalist, and the full text of the document is published and translated here [see Annex below for the full document].
The transfer plan is divided into several stages.
In the first stage, action must be taken so that the population of Gaza “evacuates south,” while the air strikes focus on the northern Gaza Strip.
In the second stage, a ground incursion into Gaza will begin, leading to the occupation of the entire Strip from north to south, and the “cleansing of the underground bunkers of Hamas fighters.”
Concurrently with the re-occupation of Gaza, Palestinian civilians will be moved into Egyptian territory, and not be allowed to return. “It is important to leave the travel routes to the south open to enable the evacuation of the civilian population toward Rafah,” the document states.
According to an official in the Intelligence Ministry, the ministry’s personnel stand behind these recommendations. The source stressed that the ministry’s research is “not based on military intelligence” and serves only as a basis for discussions within the government.
The document proposes promoting a campaign targeting Palestinian civilians in Gaza that will “motivate them to accept this plan” and lead them to give up their land. “The messages should revolve around the loss of land, making it clear that there is no hope of returning to the territories Israel will soon occupy, whether or not that is true. The image needs to be, ‘Allah made sure you lose this land because of Hamas’ leadership — there is no choice but to move to another place with the assistance of your Muslim brothers,’” the document reads.
In addition, the document encourages the government to lead a public campaign in the Western world to promote the transfer plan “in a way that does not incite or vilify Israel.” This would be done by presenting the expulsion of Gaza’s population as a humanitarian necessity to win over international support, by arguing that relocation will lead to “fewer casualties among the civilian population compared to the expected casualties if the population remains.”
The document also says that the United States should be enlisted in the process to exert pressure on Egypt to absorb the Palestinian residents of Gaza, and that other European countries — particularly Greece and Spain — as well as Canada should help absorb and settle the Palestinian refugees. The Ministry of Intelligence said the document was not yet formally distributed to U.S. officials, but only to the Israeli government and security agencies.
A Wider Policy Discussion
Last week, the Misgav Institute, a right-wing think tank headed by Meir Ben-Shabbat, a close associate of Prime Minister Netanyahu and a former head of Israel’s National Security Council, published a position paper that similarly called for the forced transfer of Gaza’s population to the Sinai. The institute recently deleted the post from Twitter and from its website after drawing strong international censure.
The deleted study was written by Amir Weitmann, a Likud activist and, according to sources familiar with him, a close associate of Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel. Last week, on a Facebook page named “The Plan to Rehabilitate Gaza in Egypt,” Weitmann interviewed Likud MK Ariel Kallner, who told him that “the solution you propose, to move the population to Egypt, is a logical and necessary solution.”
This is not the only connection between the Likud, the Ministry of Intelligence, and the right-wing think tank. About a month ago, the Ministry of Intelligence pledged to transfer about NIS 1 million from its budget to the Misgav Institute to conduct research on Arab countries. If the Misgav Institute was somehow involved in drafting the ministry’s Gaza transfer recommendations, its logo, at least, does not appear on the document.
Sources in the Ministry of Intelligence said that the Gaza report was an independent study conducted by the ministry’s policy division, without the cooperation of an external party, but they did confirm that the ministry had recently begun working with the Misgav Institute, stressing that the government body works with various research groups with diverse political agendas. The Misgav Institute has not yet responded to queries for this article.
In addition, the Intelligence Ministry’s document was first leaked in a small internal WhatsApp group of right-wing activists who, together with Likud advocate Whiteman, promote the reestablishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and the transfer of Palestinians living there.
According to one of these activists, the Intelligence Ministry document reached them through the mediation of a “Likud source,” and its public distribution is related to an attempt to find out whether “the Israeli public is ready to accept ideas of transfer from Gaza.”
The Preferred Option
The chances of fully implementing such a plan, which would amount to the total ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip, are negligible in many respects.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has declared that he strongly opposes opening the Rafah Crossing to absorb the Palestinian population from Gaza.
He argued that the displacement of Palestinians to the Sinai would threaten Israeli peace with Egypt, and warned that it would lead to Palestinians using Egyptian territory as a base to continue armed confrontations with Israel. A similar plan has been presented in the past by Israeli officials, and until now, it too had not matured into a serious policy discussion.
Moreover, after weeks of reports that the United States was attempting to raise the possibility of moving Palestinians to Egypt as part of a “humanitarian corridor,” U.S. President Joe Bidenasserted yesterday that he and Sisi were committed to “ensuring that Palestinians in Gaza are not displaced to Egypt or any other nation.”
Earlier I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the developments in Gaza — we discussed efforts to secure the release of hostages and help Americans in Gaza leave safely, and I underscored the need to immediately and significantly increase the flow of humanitarian assistance…— President Biden (@POTUS) October 29, 2023
The Intelligence Ministry document states that Egypt will have an “obligation under international law to allow the passage of the population,” and that the United States can contribute to the process by “exerting pressure on Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to contribute to the initiative, either with resources or with the absorption of displaced persons.” It also proposes conducting a dedicated public campaign aimed at the Arab world, with a “focus on the message of assisting the Palestinian brothers and rehabilitating them, even at the price of a tone that rebukes or even harms Israel.”
Finally, the document notes that the “large-scale migration” of non-combatants from combat zones is a “natural and sought-after outcome” that has also occurred in Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, concluding that only the expulsion of the Palestinian population will constitute “an appropriate response [that] will enable the creation of significant deterrence in the entire region.”
The document presents two other options regarding what to do with the residents of Gaza the day after the war. The first is to allow the Palestinian Authority (PA), headed by the Fatah party in the occupied West Bank, to rule Gaza under Israeli auspices. The second is to cultivate another “local Arab authority” as an alternative to Hamas. Both options, the document claims, are undesirable for Israel from a strategic and security perspective, and will not provide a sufficient message of deterrence, especially to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The authors of the study also noted that bringing the PA into Gaza was the most dangerous option of the three, because it could lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
“The division between the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria and Gaza is one of the main obstacles today preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is inconceivable that the outcome of this attack [Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacres] will be an unprecedented victory for the Palestinian national movement and a path to the creation of a Palestinian state,” the document said.
The document further argues that a model of Israeli military rule and PA civilian rule, as exists in the West Bank, is likely to fail in Gaza.
“There is no way to maintain an effective military occupation in Gaza only on the basis of military presence without [Israeli] settlements, and within a short time there will be internal Israeli and international pressure for withdrawal.”
The authors added that in such a situation, the State of Israel “will be considered a colonial power with an occupying army — similar to the current situation in Judea and Samaria, but even worse.” They noted that the PA has low legitimacy among the Palestinian public, and that based on Israel’s previous experience of handing over control of Gaza to the PA and Hamas’ eventual takeover, Israel should not “repeat the same mistake that led to the current situation.”
The other option, the formation of a local Arab leadership to replace Hamas, is undesirable according to the document, because there are no local opposition movements to Hamas and a new leadership is liable to be more radical. “The most plausible scenario is … not an ideological shift but rather the emergence of new, possibly even more extreme, Islamist movements,” it said. The authors mention the necessity of “creating ideological change” in the Palestinian population through a process of what it likens to “de-Nazification,” requiring Israel to “dictate the school curricula and enforce its use for an entire generation.”
Finally, the document argued that if Gaza’s population remained in the strip, there would be “many Arab casualties” during the anticipated re-occupation of the territory, which would damage Israel’s international image even more than expelling the population. For all these reasons, the Ministry of Intelligence’s recommendation is to promote the permanent transfer of all Palestinian civilians from Gaza to the Sinai.
The Defense Ministry, the army spokesperson’s office, and the Misgav Institute did not yet respond to +972’s requests for comment by the time of this article’s publication. Any responses received will be added here.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Yuval Abraham is a journalist and activist based in Jerusalem.
Annex: Israeli Intelligence Ministry Policy Paper on Gaza’s Civilian Population, October 2023
The original source of this article is +972 Magazine
The American-led NATO attacked Serbia and Montenegro with military aircraft between March to June 1999. The often indiscriminate manner of the NATO bombing resulted in more than 1,200 civilian deaths according to the Yugoslav Committee for Cooperation with UNICEF; but in fact the real number of civilian fatalities was significantly higher, and could have amounted to between 5,000 to 5,700 civilian lives lost as a result of less than three months (11 weeks) of NATO air raids.
Western interference in Serbia had been taking place for years prior to 1999.
The US and the European Union funnelled tens of millions of dollars into anti-government activities targeted at Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, whose defiance was unacceptable to Western politicians, mainly the Bill Clinton administration in Washington. Milosevic was pursuing independent foreign and domestic policies, the latter of which included his refusal to implement the neoliberal programs so heavily supported by the Americans and their European allies.
The Yugoslav city of Novi Sad on fire in 1999 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
In the 18 months before Milosevic’s presidency ended in October 2000, the US and the EU spent about $80 million on such areas as the opposition media in Serbia. Western funding stretched further back, to the mid-1990s, when large sums of US and EU money started to enter Serbia. Washington pursued this policy mostly through USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which are closely linked to the White House.
American and European funds assisted anti-government political groups like Otpor, which was based in the Serbian capital Belgrade and wanted to overthrow president Milosevic. Paul McCarthy, a senior program officer for the NED in central and eastern Europe, revealed that after the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992 the NED was granting aid to anti-government organisations in Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo, including to Otpor. In 1999 Otpor also received almost $2 million from another Washington-funded group, the International Republican Institute (IRI).
Image is from TruePublica
The NED was undertaking subversive activities alongside the Soros Open Society Foundations, established three decades ago by wealthy businessman George Soros, who is a notorious meddler, supporter of liberalism and Western imperialist expansion. Soros’ actions are often compatible with US government policy.
The NED and the Soros foundations infiltrated media organisations, think tanks, trade unions, etc. After 1990 Soros spent over $100 million on supporting anti-Milosevic groups with Otpor among the beneficiaries. Soros invested $50 million in an effort to purchase the Trepca mines and factories, located mostly in Kosovo.
The US promoted its “export of democracy” through organisations like the NED, USAID, the CIA, Freedom House and the Soros foundations. They would serve as a front for regime change in countries independent of Western policy. The method was not very different from the 1953 British and American-backed ousting of Mohammad Mosaddegh’s government in Iran, after the Iranian prime minister had nationalised the British oil firms in the country.
The CIA and MI6 funded anti-government demonstrations in Tehran, with the goals of forcing Mosaddegh from power and bringing Iran back under Western domination. More recently, Soros has regularly made use of “activists” by placing them on his payroll and they then stoke unrest in a particular nation designated for regime change.
Tanks in the streets of Tehran, 1953. Coup supporters celebrate victory in Tehran (Licensed under the Public Domain)
US government supported groups also propped up the “colour revolutions” such as occurred 20 years ago in Georgia, which shares a more than 500-mile border with Russia and is a former Soviet republic. Historian Moniz Bandeira wrote,
“After the Clinton administration left office, the Pentagon’s leadership began drafting policies to use Georgia as a key player in the neo-containment policy. The goal was to prevent Russia from dominating the Caucasus region once again”.
Between 2002 and 2004 the administration of George W. Bush engineered a project called the Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP), which involved US military training of Georgian troops; and from 2005, the Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program (GSSOP), entailing the dispatchment of US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) and Marine Corps troops for the further training of Georgian military personnel. Georgian soldiers were involved in the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and they had participated in military activities in Kosovo.
As mentioned, in November 2003 in Georgia anti-government protests were taking place, dubbed in the West as the Rose revolution. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged that partaking in the demonstrations were “non-governmental organizations… supported by American and other Western foundations”.
Among those interfering in Georgia were Washington-funded groups such as USAID, the NED, Freedom House and the International Republican Institute. The Soros foundations, inevitably, were involved in instigating unrest in Georgia, and from August to October 2003 Soros spent $42 million in encouraging anti-government activities there.
The Soros foundations funded the Kmara opposition group in Georgia, as it had done with Otpor in Serbia. Kmara was supported too by the above-mentioned US government funded organisations. Moreover, the US Ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, had a considerable role in planning and organising the “Rose revolution” through Washington. The Americans feared should events take an unwanted turn for them in Georgia, that the country would seek closer ties with its neighbour Russia.
Georgia was believed to be a strategically important state by the West, partly because of its location in the South Caucasus beside Russia and partly because it was a fossil fuel corridor. The US National Security Strategy for a New Century stated in December 1999,
“A stable and prosperous Caucasus and Central Asia will facilitate rapid development and transport to international markets of large Caspian oil and gas resources with substantial US commercial participations. Resolution of regional conflicts such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia is important for creating the stability necessary for development and transport of Caspian resources”.
Also in 1999 the US Congress sanctioned the Silk Road Strategy Act, to advance American interests and economic influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and to oppose the ambitions of Russia, Iran and China in the regions. The Silk Road Strategy Act outlined that the Caucasus/Central Asia could provide major quantities of oil and natural gas to America, while reducing the nation’s dependence on Middle East resources.
In the elapsing time America’s reliance on oil, already monumental, has further increased. In 2012 there were 248 million vehicles in the US. By 2022 there was almost a vehicle for every person in the US (291 million vehicles for 335 million people), whereas in China at the end of 2022 there were around 415 million vehicles in the country for 1.41 billion people.
There are clearly more vehicles in China by comparison to America, but per capita they remain well behind the Americans. In 2020 most households in China still did not possess a car, though that will certainly have changed by 2030 in both Chinese urban and rural areas. In America, 91.7% of all households possessed at least one car by 2021, with about 60% of American households having two cars or more.
Per capita the US continues to be the nation that is easily the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, which has been the case for decades. The US military on its own burns through more fossil fuels each year than entire countries like Denmark or Portugal, which are not poor states either.
A year after the protests in Georgia, another “colour revolution” took place this time in Ukraine in November 2004, which was titled the Orange revolution by the Western media. Bandeira noted “just as in Georgia the movement [in Ukraine] was triggered by activists, militants of the organization PORA (It’s time) and of other American and European NGOs, including Vidrodzhenya (Revival), once again sponsored by George Soros, Freedom House, the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy, which sustained the campaign of the opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko“.
Orange-clad demonstrators gather in the Independence Square in Kyiv on 22 November 2004. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
Since 1991, the US has spent many billions of dollars in an attempt to align former Soviet republics with the West, like Ukraine. This has usually involved funding the media to enable psychological warfare operations. The Pentagon pursued such a policy through the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC), the State Department and groups like Freedom House and the NED.
Bandeira wrote, “The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the conflict in Ukraine had been triggered through outside pressure, in order to force Kiev to make a decision in favor of the West”. Ukraine gained an increased significance for the West this century as NATO continued with its reckless and provocative enlargement eastwards. Over the course of two years, 2003 and 2004, Bush’s government spent over $65 million in support of subversive political groups in Ukraine, including on a tour led by presidential hopeful Yushchenko, in order for him to meet authorities in Washington to convince them he would win the 2004 election against Viktor Yanukovych.
The International Republican Institute, overseen by US Senator John McCain, was also sponsoring Yushchenko’s campaign. The wife of Yushchenko, Kateryna Yushchenko, is an American citizen and she had worked in the White House in the Public Liaison Office during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s. Yushchenko himself had worked in a far-right think tank, the Heritage Foundation, while his wife was a director with the neoconservative think tank, the New Atlantic Initiative.
McCain and Soros had business dealings together and were friends. Upon McCain’s death in 2018, Soros wrote that he was “a brave warrior for human rights who stood up against repression and torture.” Soros forgot somehow that McCain had supported a number of unprovoked US wars including against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
After the Soviet Union’s 1991 disintegration, Soros’ Open Society Foundations poured tens of millions of dollars into Ukraine and invested money in other ex-Soviet republics, so as to make them “open” and “democratic”, in other words open to Western exploitation. From 1991 to 2011 the Soros foundations dispensed with $976 million in eastern European states and former Warsaw Pact countries. Some of the biggest recipients of this cash were publishers along with academic and cultural groups.
During an interview with CNN in 2014, Soros said that in 1989 he provided funds to dissidents in nations such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, when they were still part of the Warsaw Pact. Soros admitted that prior to Ukraine separating from the Soviet Union, he had created a foundation in Ukraine that was completely operational. Bandeira wrote that later on this Soros foundation “played an important role in the protests that erupted in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) after November 2013 and prompted the overthrow of President Yanukovych”.
Relating to Syria, president Bush, by way of an authorisation or finding in May 2007, permitted the CIA to implement covert actions to undermine and topple Bashar al-Assad’s government in Damascus. The desire to remove president Assad continued from 2009 into the administration of Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, as the latter attempted to sow disharmony in Syria while he repeatedly called for Assad to resign.
Obama was supported in his remarks by European leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel. She had previously provided strong backing for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, in spite of misgivings from most of the German public and from within her own party, the Christian Democratic Union.
One key reason for Washington’s desire to oust Assad was that he had rejected their proposal for a gas pipeline running through Syrian land, that was to eventually join up with the planned Nabucco gas pipeline, which was designated to transport gas from the Caspian Sea to the Middle East and Europe. Assad was pursuing policies independent of the Western liberal order and, partly because of this, the Syrian leader was demonised by American and European politicians who wanted regime change in Syria.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Geopolitica.RU.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st edition, 23 June 2017)
“China registers 415 million motor vehicles, 500 million drivers”, Xinhua, 8 December 2022
Elizabeth Rivelli, “What is average mileage per year?”, Caranddriver, 24 February 2023
Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st edition, 4 February 2019)
Charlotte Potts, “Merkel speaks; DW checks the facts”, Deutsche Welle, 30 July 2016
Jacob Grandstaff, “George Soros, John McCain, and Immigration”, Capital Research Center, 10 July 2017
Featured image is from Geopolitica.RU
The original source of this article is Global Research
Der russische Außenminister Lawrow ist auf einer Konferenz aufgetreten und hat in einer Rede und einer Fragerunde die russische Position zu fast allen Themen der internationalen Politik erläutert.
Zuerst wollte ich nur Teile der anderthalbstündigen Diskussion übersetzen und in mehreren Artikeln veröffentlichen, an der der russische Außenminister Lawrow teilgenommen hat. Aber ich fand jede seiner Aussagen so interessant, dass ich am Ende alles übersetzt habe und hier in einem einzigen Artikel veröffentliche, auch wenn der natürlich sehr lang geworden ist. Ich habe, um es etwas übersichtlicher zu machen, einige Zwischenüberschriften eingefügt.
Die Lektüre lohnt sich, denn in seiner Rede zu Anfang erklärt Lawrow noch einmal ausführlich die russische Position zu den aktuellen Themen der internationalen Politik. Auch die Fragen und Antworten danach sind sehr interessant, denn Lawrow hat viele bemerkenswerte Aussagen gemacht. So erfahren wir in einem Nebensatz, wie er Bundeskanzler Scholz und Vizekanzler Habeck einschätzt (er hält sie offensichtlich für dumm), wir erfahren, dass Russland es sich sehr genau überlegen wird, ob es später, wenn die EU „angekrochen kommt“, noch einmal Beziehungen mit der EU aufnimmt. Und wir erfahren, was Russland von dem westlichen System der NGOs hält, also von den Stiftungen der US-Oligarchen wie Gates, Rockefeller oder dem Weltwirtschaftsforum.
Aber auch viele andere Themen, wie Indien, China, die arabische Welt und so weiter wurden angesprochen. Daher habe ich beschlossen, alles zu übersetzen, weil diese Informationen für den politisch interessierten Leser wertvolles Hintergrundwissen darstellen, das man sonst auf Deutsch nicht findet.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The American-led NATO attacked Serbia and Montenegro with military aircraft between March to June 1999. The often indiscriminate manner of the NATO bombing resulted in more than 1,200 civilian deaths according to the Yugoslav Committee for Cooperation with UNICEF; but in fact the real number of civilian fatalities was significantly higher, and could have amounted to between 5,000 to 5,700 civilian lives lost as a result of less than three months (11 weeks) of NATO air raids.
Western interference in Serbia had been taking place for years prior to 1999.
The US and the European Union funnelled tens of millions of dollars into anti-government activities targeted at Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, whose defiance was unacceptable to Western politicians, mainly the Bill Clinton administration in Washington. Milosevic was pursuing independent foreign and domestic policies, the latter of which included his refusal to implement the neoliberal programs so heavily supported by the Americans and their European allies.
The Yugoslav city of Novi Sad on fire in 1999 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
In the 18 months before Milosevic’s presidency ended in October 2000, the US and the EU spent about $80 million on such areas as the opposition media in Serbia. Western funding stretched further back, to the mid-1990s, when large sums of US and EU money started to enter Serbia. Washington pursued this policy mostly through USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which are closely linked to the White House.
American and European funds assisted anti-government political groups like Otpor, which was based in the Serbian capital Belgrade and wanted to overthrow president Milosevic. Paul McCarthy, a senior program officer for the NED in central and eastern Europe, revealed that after the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992 the NED was granting aid to anti-government organisations in Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo, including to Otpor. In 1999 Otpor also received almost $2 million from another Washington-funded group, the International Republican Institute (IRI).
Image is from TruePublica
The NED was undertaking subversive activities alongside the Soros Open Society Foundations, established three decades ago by wealthy businessman George Soros, who is a notorious meddler, supporter of liberalism and Western imperialist expansion. Soros’ actions are often compatible with US government policy.
The NED and the Soros foundations infiltrated media organisations, think tanks, trade unions, etc. After 1990 Soros spent over $100 million on supporting anti-Milosevic groups with Otpor among the beneficiaries. Soros invested $50 million in an effort to purchase the Trepca mines and factories, located mostly in Kosovo.
The US promoted its “export of democracy” through organisations like the NED, USAID, the CIA, Freedom House and the Soros foundations. They would serve as a front for regime change in countries independent of Western policy. The method was not very different from the 1953 British and American-backed ousting of Mohammad Mosaddegh’s government in Iran, after the Iranian prime minister had nationalised the British oil firms in the country.
The CIA and MI6 funded anti-government demonstrations in Tehran, with the goals of forcing Mosaddegh from power and bringing Iran back under Western domination. More recently, Soros has regularly made use of “activists” by placing them on his payroll and they then stoke unrest in a particular nation designated for regime change.
Tanks in the streets of Tehran, 1953. Coup supporters celebrate victory in Tehran (Licensed under the Public Domain)
US government supported groups also propped up the “colour revolutions” such as occurred 20 years ago in Georgia, which shares a more than 500-mile border with Russia and is a former Soviet republic. Historian Moniz Bandeira wrote,
“After the Clinton administration left office, the Pentagon’s leadership began drafting policies to use Georgia as a key player in the neo-containment policy. The goal was to prevent Russia from dominating the Caucasus region once again”.
Between 2002 and 2004 the administration of George W. Bush engineered a project called the Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP), which involved US military training of Georgian troops; and from 2005, the Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program (GSSOP), entailing the dispatchment of US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) and Marine Corps troops for the further training of Georgian military personnel. Georgian soldiers were involved in the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and they had participated in military activities in Kosovo.
As mentioned, in November 2003 in Georgia anti-government protests were taking place, dubbed in the West as the Rose revolution. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged that partaking in the demonstrations were “non-governmental organizations… supported by American and other Western foundations”.
Among those interfering in Georgia were Washington-funded groups such as USAID, the NED, Freedom House and the International Republican Institute. The Soros foundations, inevitably, were involved in instigating unrest in Georgia, and from August to October 2003 Soros spent $42 million in encouraging anti-government activities there.
The Soros foundations funded the Kmara opposition group in Georgia, as it had done with Otpor in Serbia. Kmara was supported too by the above-mentioned US government funded organisations. Moreover, the US Ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, had a considerable role in planning and organising the “Rose revolution” through Washington. The Americans feared should events take an unwanted turn for them in Georgia, that the country would seek closer ties with its neighbour Russia.
Georgia was believed to be a strategically important state by the West, partly because of its location in the South Caucasus beside Russia and partly because it was a fossil fuel corridor. The US National Security Strategy for a New Century stated in December 1999,
“A stable and prosperous Caucasus and Central Asia will facilitate rapid development and transport to international markets of large Caspian oil and gas resources with substantial US commercial participations. Resolution of regional conflicts such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia is important for creating the stability necessary for development and transport of Caspian resources”.
Also in 1999 the US Congress sanctioned the Silk Road Strategy Act, to advance American interests and economic influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and to oppose the ambitions of Russia, Iran and China in the regions. The Silk Road Strategy Act outlined that the Caucasus/Central Asia could provide major quantities of oil and natural gas to America, while reducing the nation’s dependence on Middle East resources.
In the elapsing time America’s reliance on oil, already monumental, has further increased. In 2012 there were 248 million vehicles in the US. By 2022 there was almost a vehicle for every person in the US (291 million vehicles for 335 million people), whereas in China at the end of 2022 there were around 415 million vehicles in the country for 1.41 billion people.
There are clearly more vehicles in China by comparison to America, but per capita they remain well behind the Americans. In 2020 most households in China still did not possess a car, though that will certainly have changed by 2030 in both Chinese urban and rural areas. In America, 91.7% of all households possessed at least one car by 2021, with about 60% of American households having two cars or more.
Per capita the US continues to be the nation that is easily the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, which has been the case for decades. The US military on its own burns through more fossil fuels each year than entire countries like Denmark or Portugal, which are not poor states either.
A year after the protests in Georgia, another “colour revolution” took place this time in Ukraine in November 2004, which was titled the Orange revolution by the Western media. Bandeira noted “just as in Georgia the movement [in Ukraine] was triggered by activists, militants of the organization PORA (It’s time) and of other American and European NGOs, including Vidrodzhenya (Revival), once again sponsored by George Soros, Freedom House, the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy, which sustained the campaign of the opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko“.
Orange-clad demonstrators gather in the Independence Square in Kyiv on 22 November 2004. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
Since 1991, the US has spent many billions of dollars in an attempt to align former Soviet republics with the West, like Ukraine. This has usually involved funding the media to enable psychological warfare operations. The Pentagon pursued such a policy through the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC), the State Department and groups like Freedom House and the NED.
Bandeira wrote, “The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the conflict in Ukraine had been triggered through outside pressure, in order to force Kiev to make a decision in favor of the West”. Ukraine gained an increased significance for the West this century as NATO continued with its reckless and provocative enlargement eastwards. Over the course of two years, 2003 and 2004, Bush’s government spent over $65 million in support of subversive political groups in Ukraine, including on a tour led by presidential hopeful Yushchenko, in order for him to meet authorities in Washington to convince them he would win the 2004 election against Viktor Yanukovych.
The International Republican Institute, overseen by US Senator John McCain, was also sponsoring Yushchenko’s campaign. The wife of Yushchenko, Kateryna Yushchenko, is an American citizen and she had worked in the White House in the Public Liaison Office during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s. Yushchenko himself had worked in a far-right think tank, the Heritage Foundation, while his wife was a director with the neoconservative think tank, the New Atlantic Initiative.
McCain and Soros had business dealings together and were friends. Upon McCain’s death in 2018, Soros wrote that he was “a brave warrior for human rights who stood up against repression and torture.” Soros forgot somehow that McCain had supported a number of unprovoked US wars including against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
After the Soviet Union’s 1991 disintegration, Soros’ Open Society Foundations poured tens of millions of dollars into Ukraine and invested money in other ex-Soviet republics, so as to make them “open” and “democratic”, in other words open to Western exploitation. From 1991 to 2011 the Soros foundations dispensed with $976 million in eastern European states and former Warsaw Pact countries. Some of the biggest recipients of this cash were publishers along with academic and cultural groups.
During an interview with CNN in 2014, Soros said that in 1989 he provided funds to dissidents in nations such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, when they were still part of the Warsaw Pact. Soros admitted that prior to Ukraine separating from the Soviet Union, he had created a foundation in Ukraine that was completely operational. Bandeira wrote that later on this Soros foundation “played an important role in the protests that erupted in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) after November 2013 and prompted the overthrow of President Yanukovych”.
Relating to Syria, president Bush, by way of an authorisation or finding in May 2007, permitted the CIA to implement covert actions to undermine and topple Bashar al-Assad’s government in Damascus. The desire to remove president Assad continued from 2009 into the administration of Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, as the latter attempted to sow disharmony in Syria while he repeatedly called for Assad to resign.
Obama was supported in his remarks by European leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel. She had previously provided strong backing for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, in spite of misgivings from most of the German public and from within her own party, the Christian Democratic Union.
One key reason for Washington’s desire to oust Assad was that he had rejected their proposal for a gas pipeline running through Syrian land, that was to eventually join up with the planned Nabucco gas pipeline, which was designated to transport gas from the Caspian Sea to the Middle East and Europe. Assad was pursuing policies independent of the Western liberal order and, partly because of this, the Syrian leader was demonised by American and European politicians who wanted regime change in Syria.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Geopolitica.RU.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st edition, 23 June 2017)
“China registers 415 million motor vehicles, 500 million drivers”, Xinhua, 8 December 2022
Elizabeth Rivelli, “What is average mileage per year?”, Caranddriver, 24 February 2023
Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st edition, 4 February 2019)
Charlotte Potts, “Merkel speaks; DW checks the facts”, Deutsche Welle, 30 July 2016
Jacob Grandstaff, “George Soros, John McCain, and Immigration”, Capital Research Center, 10 July 2017
Featured image is from Geopolitica.RU
The original source of this article is Global Research
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Of relevance to the current crisis, this carefully researched article was first published by Global Research more than ten years ago on June 1, 2011.
The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.
According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]
So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?
This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.
One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]
J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.
CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches.
He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York.
Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3]
The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century.
Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others. [4]
The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking cartel as “conspiracy theory”. Yet the facts remain.
The House of Morgan
The Federal Reserve Bank was born in 1913, the same year US banking scion J. Pierpont Morgan died and the Rockefeller Foundation was formed. The House of Morgan presided over American finance from the corner of Wall Street and Broad, acting as quasi-US central bank since 1838, when George Peabody founded it in London.
Peabody was a business associate of the Rothschilds. In 1952 Fed researcher Eustace Mullins put forth the supposition that the Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents. Mullins wrote that the Rothschilds, “…preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company”. [5]
Author Gabriel Kolko stated, “Morgan’s activities in 1895-1896 in selling US gold bonds in Europe were based on an alliance with the House of Rothschild.” [6]
The Morgan financial octopus wrapped its tentacles quickly around the globe. Morgan Grenfell operated in London. Morgan et Ce ruled Paris. The Rothschild’s Lambert cousins set up Drexel & Company in Philadelphia.
The House of Morgan catered to the Astors, DuPonts, Guggenheims, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. It financed the launch of AT&T, General Motors, General Electric and DuPont. Like the London-based Rothschild and Barings banks, Morgan became part of the power structure in many countries.
By 1890 the House of Morgan was lending to Egypt’s central bank, financing Russian railroads, floating Brazilian provincial government bonds and funding Argentine public works projects. A recession in 1893 enhanced Morgan’s power. That year Morgan saved the US government from a bank panic, forming a syndicate to prop up government reserves with a shipment of $62 million worth of Rothschild gold. [7]
Morgan was the driving force behind Western expansion in the US, financing and controlling West-bound railroads through voting trusts. In 1879 Cornelius Vanderbilt’s Morgan-financed New York Central Railroad gave preferential shipping rates to John D. Rockefeller’s budding Standard Oil monopoly, cementing the Rockefeller/Morgan relationship.
The House of Morgan now fell under Rothschild and Rockefeller family control. A New York Herald headline read, “Railroad Kings Form Gigantic Trust”. J. Pierpont Morgan, who once stated, “Competition is a sin”, now opined gleefully, “Think of it. All competing railroad traffic west of St. Louis placed in the control of about thirty men.”[8]
Morgan and Edward Harriman’s banker Kuhn Loeb held a monopoly over the railroads, while banking dynasties Lehman, Goldman Sachs and Lazard joined the Rockefellers in controlling the US industrial base. [9]
In 1903 Banker’s Trust was set up by the Eight Families. Benjamin Strong of Banker’s Trust was the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The 1913 creation of the Fed fused the power of the Eight Families to the military and diplomatic might of the US government. If their overseas loans went unpaid, the oligarchs could now deploy US Marines to collect the debts. Morgan, Chase and Citibank formed an international lending syndicate.
The House of Morgan was cozy with the British House of Windsor and the Italian House of Savoy. The Kuhn Loebs, Warburgs, Lehmans, Lazards, Israel Moses Seifs and Goldman Sachs also had close ties to European royalty. By 1895 Morgan controlled the flow of gold in and out of the US. The first American wave of mergers was in its infancy and was being promoted by the bankers. In 1897 there were sixty-nine industrial mergers. By 1899 there were twelve-hundred. In 1904 John Moody – founder of Moody’s Investor Services – said it was impossible to talk of Rockefeller and Morgan interests as separate. [10]
Public distrust of the combine spread. Many considered them traitors working for European old money. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Andrew Carnegie’s US Steel and Edward Harriman’s railroads were all financed by banker Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who worked closely with the European Rothschilds.
Several Western states banned the bankers. Populist preacher William Jennings Bryan was thrice the Democratic nominee for President from 1896 -1908. The central theme of his anti-imperialist campaign was that America was falling into a trap of “financial servitude to British capital”. Teddy Roosevelt defeated Bryan in 1908, but was forced by this spreading populist wildfire to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He then went after the Standard Oil Trust.
In 1912 the Pujo hearings were held, addressing concentration of power on Wall Street. That same year Mrs. Edward Harriman sold her substantial shares in New York’s Guaranty Trust Bank to J.P. Morgan, creating Morgan Guaranty Trust. Judge Louis Brandeis convinced President Woodrow Wilson to call for an end to interlocking board directorates. In 1914 the Clayton Anti-Trust Act was passed.
Jack Morgan – J. Pierpont’s son and successor – responded by calling on Morgan clients Remington and Winchester to increase arms production. He argued that the US needed to enter WWI. Goaded by the Carnegie Foundation and other oligarchy fronts, Wilson accommodated. As Charles Tansill wrote in America Goes to War, “Even before the clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan & Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100 million, a substantial part of which was to be left in the US to pay for French purchases of American goods.”
The House of Morgan financed half the US war effort, while receiving commissions for lining up contractors like GE, Du Pont, US Steel, Kennecott and ASARCO. All were Morgan clients. Morgan also financed the British Boer War in South Africa and the Franco-Prussian War. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was presided over by Morgan, which led both German and Allied reconstruction efforts. [11]
In the 1930’s populism resurfaced in America after Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bank and others profited from the Crash of 1929. [12] House Banking Committee Chairman Louis McFadden (D-NY) said of the Great Depression, “It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence…The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all”.
Sen. Gerald Nye (D-ND) chaired a munitions investigation in 1936. Nye concluded that the House of Morgan had plunged the US into WWI to protect loans and create a booming arms industry. Nye later produced a document titled The Next War, which cynically referred to “the old goddess of democracy trick”, through which Japan could be used to lure the US into WWII.
In 1937 Interior Secretary Harold Ickes warned of the influence of “America’s 60 Families”. Historian Ferdinand Lundberg later penned a book of the exact same title. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas decried, “Morgan influence…the most pernicious one in industry and finance today.”
Jack Morgan responded by nudging the US towards WWII. Morgan had close relations with the Iwasaki and Dan families – Japan’s two wealthiest clans – who have owned Mitsubishi and Mitsui, respectively, since the companies emerged from 17th Century shogunates. When Japan invaded Manchuria, slaughtering Chinese peasants at Nanking, Morgan downplayed the incident. Morgan also had close relations with Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, while German Nazi Dr. Hjalmer Schacht was a Morgan Bank liaison during WWII. After the war Morgan representatives met with Schacht at the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. [13]
The House of Rockefeller
BIS is the most powerful bank in the world, a global central bank for the Eight Families who control the private central banks of almost all Western and developing nations. The first President of BIS was Rockefeller banker Gates McGarrah- an official at Chase Manhattan and the Federal Reserve. McGarrah was the grandfather of former CIA director Richard Helms. The Rockefellers- like the Morgans- had close ties to London. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix, that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just “gofers” for the European Rothschilds. [14]
BIS is owned by the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, Bank of Canada, Swiss National Bank, Nederlandsche Bank, Bundesbank and Bank of France.
Historian Carroll Quigley wrote in his epic book Tragedy and Hope that BIS was part of a plan,
“to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole…to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements.”
The US government had a historical distrust of BIS, lobbying unsuccessfully for its demise at the 1944 post-WWII Bretton Woods Conference. Instead the Eight Families’ power was exacerbated, with the Bretton Woods creation of the IMF and the World Bank. The US Federal Reserve only took shares in BIS in September 1994. [15]
BIS holds at least 10% of monetary reserves for at least 80 of the world’s central banks, the IMF and other multilateral institutions. It serves as financial agent for international agreements, collects information on the global economy and serves as lender of last resort to prevent global financial collapse.
BIS promotes an agenda of monopoly capitalist fascism. It gave a bridge loan to Hungary in the 1990’s to ensure privatization of that country’s economy. It served as conduit for Eight Families funding of Adolf Hitler- led by the Warburg’s J. Henry Schroeder and Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam. Many researchers assert that BIS is at the nadir of global drug money laundering. [16]
It is no coincidence that BIS is headquartered in Switzerland, favorite hiding place for the wealth of the global aristocracy and headquarters for the P-2 Italian Freemason’s Alpina Lodge and Nazi International. Other institutions which the Eight Families control include the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference and the World Trade Organization.
Bretton Woods was a boon to the Eight Families. The IMF and World Bank were central to this “new world order”. In 1944 the first World Bank bonds were floated by Morgan Stanley and First Boston. The French Lazard family became more involved in House of Morgan interests. Lazard Freres- France’s biggest investment bank- is owned by the Lazard and David-Weill families- old Genoese banking scions represented by Michelle Davive. A recent Chairman and CEO of Citigroup was Sanford Weill.
In 1968 Morgan Guaranty launched Euro-Clear, a Brussels-based bank clearing system for Eurodollar securities. It was the first such automated endeavor. Some took to calling Euro-Clear “The Beast”. Brussels serves as headquarters for the new European Central Bank and for NATO. In 1973 Morgan officials met secretly in Bermuda to illegally resurrect the old House of Morgan, twenty years before Glass Steagal Act was repealed. Morgan and the Rockefellers provided the financial backing for Merrill Lynch, boosting it into the Big 5 of US investment banking. Merrill is now part of Bank of America.
John D. Rockefeller used his oil wealth to acquire Equitable Trust, which had gobbled up several large banks and corporations by the 1920’s. The Great Depression helped consolidate Rockefeller’s power. His Chase Bank merged with Kuhn Loeb’s Manhattan Bank to form Chase Manhattan, cementing a long-time family relationship. The Kuhn-Loeb’s had financed – along with Rothschilds – Rockefeller’s quest to become king of the oil patch. National City Bank of Cleveland provided John D. with the money needed to embark upon his monopolization of the US oil industry. The bank was identified in Congressional hearings as being one of three Rothschild-owned banks in the US during the 1870’s, when Rockefeller first incorporated as Standard Oil of Ohio. [17]
One Rockefeller Standard Oil partner was Edward Harkness, whose family came to control Chemical Bank. Another was James Stillman, whose family controlled Manufacturers Hanover Trust. Both banks have merged under the JP Morgan Chase umbrella. Two of James Stillman’s daughters married two of William Rockefeller’s sons. The two families control a big chunk of Citigroup as well. [18]
In the insurance business, the Rockefellers control Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, Prudential and New York Life. Rockefeller banks control 25% of all assets of the 50 largest US commercial banks and 30% of all assets of the 50 largest insurance companies. [19] Insurance companies- the first in the US was launched by Freemasons through their Woodman’s of America- play a key role in the Bermuda drug money shuffle.
Companies under Rockefeller control include Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, ASARCO, United, Delta, Northwest, ITT, International Harvester, Xerox, Boeing, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide and General Foods.
The Rockefeller Foundation has close financial ties to both Ford and Carnegie Foundations. Other family philanthropic endeavors include Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, General Education Board, Rockefeller University and the University of Chicago- which churns out a steady stream of far right economists as apologists for international capital, including Milton Friedman.
The family owns 30 Rockefeller Plaza, where the national Christmas tree is lighted every year, and Rockefeller Center. David Rockefeller was instrumental in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The main Rockefeller family home is a hulking complex in upstate New York known as Pocantico Hills. They also own a 32-room 5th Avenue duplex in Manhattan, a mansion in Washington, DC, Monte Sacro Ranch in Venezuela, coffee plantations in Ecuador, several farms in Brazil, an estate at Seal Harbor, Maine and resorts in the Caribbean, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. [20]
The Dulles and Rockefeller families are cousins. Allen Dulles created the CIA, assisted the Nazis, covered up the Kennedy hit from his Warren Commission perch and struck a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood to create mind-controlled assassins. [21]
Brother John Foster Dulles presided over the phony Goldman Sachs trusts before the 1929 stock market crash and helped his brother overthrow governments in Iran and Guatemala. Both were Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders and 33rd Degree Masons. [22]
The Rockefellers were instrumental in forming the depopulation-oriented Club of Rome at their family estate in Bellagio, Italy. Their Pocantico Hills estate gave birth to the Trilateral Commission. The family is a major funder of the eugenics movement which spawned Hitler, human cloning and the current DNA obsession in US scientific circles.
John Rockefeller Jr. headed the Population Council until his death. [23] His namesake son is a Senator from West Virginia. Brother Winthrop Rockefeller was Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas and remains the most powerful man in that state. In an October 1975 interview with Playboy magazine, Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller- who was also Governor of New York- articulated his family’s patronizing worldview, “I am a great believer in planning- economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”
But of all the Rockefeller brothers, it is Trilateral Commission (TC) founder and Chase Manhattan Chairman David who has spearheaded the family’s fascist agenda on a global scale. He defended the Shah of Iran, the South African apartheid regime and the Chilean Pinochet junta. He was the biggest financier of the CFR, the TC and (during the Vietnam War) the Committee for an Effective and Durable Peace in Asia- a contract bonanza for those who made their living off the conflict.
Nixon asked him to be Secretary of Treasury, but Rockefeller declined the job, knowing his power was much greater at the helm of the Chase. Author Gary Allen writes in The Rockefeller File that in 1973, “David Rockefeller met with twenty-seven heads of state, including the rulers of Russia and Red China.”
Following the 1975 Nugan Hand Bank/CIA coup against Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, his British Crown-appointed successor Malcolm Fraser sped to the US, where he met with President Gerald Ford after conferring with David Rockefeller. [24]
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries. His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com
Notes
[1] 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91
[2] 10K Filing of US Trust Corporation to SEC. 6-28-95
[4] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179
[5] Ibid. p.53
[6] The Triumph of Conservatism. Gabriel Kolko. MacMillan and Company New York. 1963. p.142
[7] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.57
[8] The House of Morgan. Ron Chernow. Atlantic Monthly Press NewYork 1990
[9] Marrs. p.57
[10] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.178
[11] Chernow
[12] The Great Crash of 1929. John Kenneth Galbraith. Houghton, Mifflin Company. Boston. 1979. p.148
[13] Chernow
[14] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000
[15] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.112
[16] Marrs. p.180
[17] Ibid. p.45
[18] The Money Lenders: The People and Politics of the World Banking Crisis. Anthony Sampson. Penguin Books. New York. 1981
[19] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. ’76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977
[20] Ibid
[21] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992
[22] Marrs.
[23] The Rockefeller Syndrome. Ferdinand Lundberg. Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ. 1975. p.296
[24] Marrs. p.53
Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network
Big Oil… pulls back the covers to expose a centuries-old cabal of global oligarchs, whose control over the global economy is based on hegemony over the planet’s three most valuable commodities: oil, guns and drugs- combined with ownership of the world’s central banks.Henderson implicates these oligarchs in the orchestration of a string of conspiracies from Pearl Harbor to the Kennedy Assassination to 911. He follows the trail of dirty money up the food chain to the interbred Eight Families who- from their City of London base- control the Four Horsemen of Oil, the global drug trade and the permanent war economy.”Big Oil… is an extraordinary expose of the powers and events that are exacting a heavy toll on us, the people”.- Nexus New Times Magazine. Australia.”Big Oil… is hair-raising and a masterpiece which deserves not less than the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism. This book should be a requisite for every American to study.”- Dr. Carlos J. Canggiano, M.D., Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
[This article was first published on April 10, 2023.]
***
Two kinds of absolute controls are being prepared to implement The Great Reset, alias UN Agenda 2030. A potentially straitjacket and total control by programmable Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), and an all-oppressive health tyranny by WHO, overriding national Constitutional rights and national sovereignty as far as health measures are concerned.
The former will be “managed”, coordinated and supervised for faultless implementation, by the so-called Central Bank of Central Banks, the Bank for International Settlement (BIS); the latter by the 1948 Rockefeller-created, falsely called UN-agency WHO. The emerging tyrant’s budget is to 80% pharma, Gates and otherwise privately funded. Both are criminal organizations.
These are plans, not yet implemented. But the world better be aware, so We, the People, may stop this terrifying assault on humanity in its tracks.
CBDC may be upon us, humanity, rather sooner than later. Programmable CBDC is a weapon of mass destruction. The weapon has been in the planning for decades – and it fits right into the Bigger Picture of the Great Reset / Agenda 2030.
Programmable – means the money can be programmed on how it is to be spent by an individual, or blocked, or made to expire, or made to be used for certain goods or services – or it can be totally withheld, wiped out, depending on how well you behave, according to the standards of the all-commandeering death cult elite.
CBDC is a master control element, a stranglehold on the population.
Simultaneously, an all controlling health tyranny is being prepared by WHO. The plan is that the new totalitarian rules – Biden Administration initiated revised International Health Regulations (IHR), including a new Pandemic Treaty – are to be ratified by the World Health Assembly, presumably by the end of May 2023. If approved, by a two-thirds majority, the new rules will become effective in 2024.
Health Tyranny and Control by WHO
The elite who pretends to rule over humanity acts most silently from the shadows. It includes the financial giants, the largest funders of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Davos Boys. The financial elite calls the shots on integrated and willing Klaus Schwab, WEF’s CEO.
In turn, Mr. Schwab passes on instructions to the World Health Organization (WHO), for example, to redesign and implement the revision of the IHR which now also includes a Pandemic Treaty.
First, Bill Gates, also one of the key sponsors of WHO, puts a shady Ethiopian politician, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, at the helm of WHO. Tedros, a buddy of Bill Gates, is former DG of the GAVI Vaxx-Alliance, also created and funded by the Gates Foundation. – So much for WHO being a UN Agency.
If these new IHR / Pandemic Treaty are approved by the World Health Assembly at the end of May 2023, the world (currently 194 WHO members) will be living under a “health tyranny”.
WHO would have overreaching powers over otherwise autonomous countries, being able to overrule national Constitutions and decide whether a disease must be treated as a pandemic, i.e., with massive vaccination.
For example, WHO could decide that henceforth the common flue must be treated as a pandemic. Since “covid”, any “vaccination” will be the gene-modifying mRNA type. The same viral-technology that has, with covid inoculations, caused already tens of millions of deaths around the world. Of course, not openly recognized, but over-mortality statistics, especially in the western world, alias, Global North, speak for themselves. They are congruent with the countries’ vaxx-injection rates.
People have no clue that when they next take their kid for a polio, or measles vaccination, their child will be injected with a potentially deadly mRNA-type toxic solution, producing immune-averse spike proteins. See this by Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer.
Total Obedience
To assure utmost obedience of countries, Klaus Schwab has on several occasions boasted that the, the WEF was able infiltrating scholars of the WEF “Academy” for Young Global Leaders (YGL) into governments around the world. They often are placed in Prime Minister’s or President’s positions. To name just a few of the more prominent ones – Justin Trudeau, Canada; Emmanuel Macron, France; Mark Rutte, Netherlands; former German Chancellor Angela Merkel; as well as Olaf Scholz, current Chancellor of Germany.
Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – Welcome to the New Money Prison
The decision to introduce CBDC so-to-speak at warp speed was made at a Jackson Hole, WY, meeting in August 2019 by the Central Bankers of the G7 nations. They voted on a financial coup which was “Going Direct Reset”.
This was planned way ahead for at least the last 20 years, and now needed to be consolidated for the final stage of total and absolute financial control – the end game of the coming world tyranny. First applied by the Global North, where the impact will be greatest.
It is weaponizing money into programmable and controllable CBDC – a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
The rest of the world will follow suit. That’s what they think. Destruction of the industrialized world is first. Germany is supposed to lead deindustrialization of Europe, prompted by artificially caused energy shortages. Then comes the absolute control of the world’s natural resources – so that reconstruction of the system, with a drastically reduced world population, may progress rather fast.
The US / NATO Ukraine proxy-war against Russia is a forerunner aiming at dominating Russia and her wealth of natural resources.
Governments and banksters are the people’s biggest, most nefarious, but least recognized enemies. How much longer does it take until a majority of people will wake up and stop this crime on humanity?
According to Katherine Austin Fitts, the introduction of CBDC, may put half a billion people out of work. That is just one part of the warfare. It is intimately connected to the plandemic. People did not die of covid, most perished from toxic vaxxes and from “covid” caused misery.
Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP and Chief Scientist of Pfizer repeatedly said in his interviews and special addresses, the real, potentially massive dying, of the coerced vaxx-campaign – will take place after three and up to about ten years from the beginning of the vaxx-drive. Injections of mRNA material into people’s bodies began in December 2020. We are now entering year three. And hundreds of thousands, if not millions, around the world have already died due to the “vaxxes”, NOT covid.
Today, truth-seeking scientists and medical doctors warn – “don’t get vaxxed, it is dangerous for your health, the jabs may kill you.” If not, they may maim you for life, or reduce massively women’s and men’s fertility. The latter shows already up in statistics – in Europe from 20% to 40% reduced fertility in 2022. Yet, worldwide vaxx-drives go on – a bulldozer stopping from nothing.
How to weaponize money?
A threesome tyranny – a “trinity”, is at it. The WEF and it’s behind the scene giant financiers; the Governments, and the banksters, through a network of national central banks, all controlled by the Bank for International Settlement (BIS), in Basel, Switzerland. The “health industry” – Big Pharma, health- and hospital facilities and insurances are following the line with digitized health records and digitized health services.
The 2019 G7 Jackson Hole decision on massive bank failures to bring about CBDC, started in early March 2023 on a relatively light note in the United States. The opening was the apparent collapse of California’s Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), California’s Silvergate Capital and NYC’s Signature Bank. None of them really needed to go into bankruptcy. They were “bailed out” by the Biden Administration, put in control of the “Regulator”, before rumors of failure could trigger a run on the bank.
We know how “rumors” can be fabricated or enhanced and how they may mobilize people.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Credit Suisse, second largest Swiss bank, had been plagued for the last two decades by scandals and “financial irregularities” one after the other, including drug money laundering, and helping Russian oligarch escape western sanctions by “disappearing “ documents linking them to their luxury yachts which were supposed to be confiscated.
Since earlier this year, the bank’s share value plummeted, first by the week, then by the day. For a complete list of financial scandals and more, see this.
Much of the loss of confidence was, again, based on rumors – and rumors can be spread – true or false.
There was never a need to put CS into receivership. The bank, according to many analysts, also FINMA (the Swiss banking “regulator”) was solvent, especially after CS supposedly received on Friday, 17 March, a 50 billion franc “bail-out” loan from the Swiss Central Bank.
According to insiders (CS analysts)- and outsiders, this amount of cash would have been enough to restructure the bank, including quietly getting rid of undesirable skeletons – regaining trust of people and shareholders – and be functional again within less than a year.
However, there may be another agenda for the sudden change in direction, during the weekend, 18/19 March. Janet Yellen, US Secretary of Treasury, UK and German senior Ministry of Finance officials were in “consultation” with the Swiss Minister of Finance.
Outside pressure again cut into Swiss sovereignty politically and in terms of Swiss reputed private banking services.
What happened then, is the complete opposite to what the 50 billion “bail-out” should have achieved. One may ask, was the CHF 50 billion government “bail-out” just a disguise?
In an apparent sudden change of direction, the Swiss Government, without any consultation of shareholders and holders of some CHF 16 billion worth of bonds, forced UBS, the largest Swiss bank, to take over its slightly smaller sister, CS. Even stranger, this happened by applying a shady emergency decree. CS was never in an emergency of insolvency.
CS shareholders had to accept a take-over price of CHF 3 billion, about CHF 0.76 / share, less than half its last quoted share value. The bank’s infrastructure alone is worth a multiple of the take-over price.
On Sunday, March 19, the Swiss regulator FINMA announced that the so-called additional tier-one bonds (AT1) of about CHF 16 billion will be written to zero as part of the deal. Neither the shareholders or the bondholders were warned.
This precipitous coerced deal has not gone down well in Europe. A famous law Professor at the Swiss Fribourg law-specialized university, called Switzerland a “Banana Republic”.
The conservative Swiss newspaper NZZ reported on 19 March 2023 that a few months ago nobody would have believed the downfall of CS was possible. In 2007, CS had a stock value of over CHF 100 billion. It was gradually reduced to CHF 7 billion, less than a week before the decreed take-over. The paper concludes that Switzerland got rid of a Zombie-bank, but acquired instead a Monster-bank. After the merger, UBS will have about 5 trillion worth of managed assets. Compare this with about 10 trillion of BlackRock.
Instead of a 50 billion bailout credit – which would have been paid back, the new deal costs Switzerland about 230 billion – a 200 billion Central Bank line of credit, of which hundred billion are fully guaranteed by the Swiss Government (taxpayers), plus a 9 billion guarantee (taxpayer) for UBS losses, plus other guarantees in case of defaults.
As a sideline, the Swiss Central Bank, on 5 March declared one of the biggest losses in its recent history, of CHF132.5 billion. You add to this a potential loss position of another some CHF 100 to 200 billion – that makes you think – what else is planned to wipe out this debt?
The major CS shareholders may launch a massive law suit against the Swiss Government. Saudi National Bank (10%), Saudi Olayan Group (5%), plus Qatar Holding (5%), hold together about 20%. For these oil-producing countries legal fees may not be an issue, but creating a precedent will be important. BlackRock with about 4.1% CS shares stays for now on the sidelines.
Looks and smells like all of this has been planned by a long hand. Remember the G7 Central Bankers meeting at Jackson Hole, Wy in 2019?
Financial Times and Forbes report that there are about 200 small-to medium size US banks “at the brink” of collapse. The Credit Suisse collapse, one of the world’s 30 systemically most important banks, also one of the “Too Big to Fail” banks, rescued by the Swiss Government, may just set the beginning of a massive domino of bank failures in the US and Europe. See this.
BlackRock’s Vice Chairman, responsible for Investments, Philipp Hildebrand, is the former President of the Swiss National Bank (forced out in 2016, because of a personal scandal), then joined BlackRock. He knows how the wheels turn in Switzerland.
The Biden Administration’s rule of order, ignores the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that eliminates government bail-outs and opened the door for bail-ins, allowing banks to confiscating creditors’ money and converting it into equity. If this government bail-out policy continues, a never-seen before government debt will accrue. The same may apply in Europe, amassing potentially hundreds of trillions of national debts, on both sides of the Atlantic.
This would be the ideal moment to introduce at once in the western world – US, UK, Canada, Europe, but also Japan and Australia – programmable Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
These countries’ combined 2022 GDP amounts to about US$ 50 trillion equivalent, almost half of the 2022 world GDP (US$ 103.86 trillion). See this (World Bank data).
*
Within the shortest period of time, the western US-dollar-based economy’s debt could be wiped out with one stroke – with a new kind of money, the CBDC. With another stroke, the entire ignorant western population could be doubly straitjacketed – by WHO’s Health Tyranny, as well as by programmable CBDC.
It is high time that We, the People, around the world gain consciousness and become aware of the dictatorial measures waiting just a short stretch down road to be implemented. Then, the bulk of The Great Reset / Agenda 2030 would have been achieved. Once that happens, it will be difficult to escape.
It is time that We the People, request our governments to exit WHO – in Switzerland a referendum to this effect has already been initiated – and that we are prepared for setting up parallel governments with local money, totally delinked from existing banking and central banks.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network
Der Friedensstifter 