Showing posts with label economic warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic warfare. Show all posts

Monday, October 24, 2016

Clinton aggravates Russia. SATAN NUKES now ready for EAST COAST USA

Vladimir Putin has responded publicly to the Clinton camp in the USA presidential election race, stating it is a grave concern Hillary Clinton seems determined to vilify Russia and push towards war. This report covers some of the video footage of Putin with English subtitles; quotes Global Research ( Michael Chassudovsky) ; reveals what some senior US military figures have stated about Clinton's Syrian No-Fly Zone being a formula for outright war with Russia; and looks at the similarity between the international economic situation now and that leading up to World War 1 and World War 2.

There is apparently much heated disagreement within the intelligence and military community at the moment, particularly with regard to Russia and Syria / The Middle East. Some have alleged there are now warring camps within the military, driven by significant tensions over:
A) the polarization of power away from the constitutional model and towards an all powerful presidency that's aligned with globalist interests.
B) deep concern by some that the Obama & Clinton Camp, along with the military industrial complex is driving the USA headlong into another world war involving Russia and possibly China.

Here's the video : https://youtu.be/at7z_3C_J5o.

Now : WeAreChange is the creator and publisher of this video. They have nearly 400,000 followers, and obviously research much more widely than mainstream media. They also report from where significant news is happening as much as possible. As always, I suggest you follow the references through, especially to Global Research (who are very balanced and trustworthy) and RT News, who give an alternative view of what's going on in the world.

Monday, August 15, 2016

URGENT! : TPP = Trans-Pacific Poison!

If we need a new hospital because our population is growing in Queensland and there's a groundswell of demand already, wouldn't it be in the public interest to build one? Darn right! So would you be angry if a multinational owner of a private hospital nearby was able to sue the state government for planning to build one? Not because of provable losses, but anticipated losses? As anticipated by them, not us?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is pure poison. There's NEVER been legislation so hideous that will enslave Australians. It will give global companies rights and privileges that make the citizens of Australia less secure, less valued and less wealthy by far. It will also drastically effect of versions and use of the Internet : it will become purely a tool of commerce to advantage of the largest companies. Mark my words. If we don't get onto friends to help them understand this, it will be game over for the good life in just a few short years.

The globalists, particularly in the USA, are behind three international treaties that extend from the USA as a huge catchment; each circling a different section of the world like a net. The Trans-Atlantic Partnership deals with Europe. It's more of the same poison.

Share this with your friends. Hell, just Google it! Look on YouTube. Go to InfoWars.com. But don't weep when you're enslaved if you're not willing to stand up now. Assange is provably right.

Watch Assange get interviewed about the first four chapters of the TPP they got hold of, that we are not allowed to see! Watch at https://youtu.be/xBeQvpFTvqU.

Monday, May 30, 2016

G7 decisions may cut Russia off from SWIFT banking

A Chinese proverb I heard quoted only shortly before finding this video said something like "Politics is the art of war without bloodshed. War is the art of politics with bloodshed."

It seems very pertinent when I consider the video
https://youtu.be/jCtq-3CHbvE.

This is from May 2016, but still pertinent.

Friday, December 16, 2011

"It's Executive Action, and doesn't require legislation"

Did you view the video I just posted. If you did, aproximately 70% of the way through, you will hear a USA diplomat say "It's Executive Action, and doesn't require legislation". This is in regard to actions that affect the sovereignty of USA and Canada. Why is this so? It's because USA has been operating under a condition of Executiveauthority for some years now, meaning the president does not have to consult congress or anyone else! Does this ring some bells for you? Can you think of other situations wher the Pres has acted on hios own volition? Small things like starting an international war in the past year or so? It's because he is genuinely all powerful whilst the national emergency condition that grants him special powers persists; and he's not about to let it go :) Keep your eyes peeled for the Dictator (oops, Pres) making more decisive and impactful decisions, which are of course in the interest of the American people (sure thing).

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Pentagon prepares for economic warfare



1108120 NY stock exchange
Traders at the New York Stock Exchange yesterday. The US fears China's ability to press the button on its Treasury bills. Picture: AFP Source: AFP
THE scene: the war games suite of the mightiest military power in the world.
The guests were assembled in the Warfare Analysis Laboratory, surrounded by uniformed officers from the highest levels of the Pentagon and a dizzying array of screens normally used to simulate nuclear world war.
The gentlemen were called to order and the games began.
"If you imagine the war room in Dr. Strangelove, you're not far off," says participant James Rickards.
Yet this was no traditional battle game, but rather the Pentagon's first economic war game, and the authorities are loath to talk about it.
Economic war? It sounds preposterous. Except it gets less so with every dollar of debt run up by the US.
Behind the scenes, the military are worried about the market. For who owns much of this debt? China, the US's most powerful rival and threat. And that makes America vulnerable to a new kind of bloodless but ruthless war.
The group was split into five teams: America, Russia, China, Pacific Rim, and a "grey team", representing shady outfits such as terrorist organisations. They were sent into "bunker rooms" and told to use financial or economic tools - currency, debt, stocks, gold - to bring their enemies to their knees. Everything was conducted via computer, and they could be as devious and ruthless as they liked. The bankers liked.Rickards is not a soldier but a banker. He was joined in the war game by dozens of his Wall Street colleagues, flown in from Manhattan to this bunker at the Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland for the two-day event in 2009, when the Pentagon started to get really alarmed.
"These people would normally never come together. But there is nothing more fun than to take a Wall Street guy and tell him to be a bad guy," says Mr Rickards, a former senior executive who was involved in planning and executing the war game.
When the game was halted, the result left the military men quiet and sobered. Why did the bankers scare the soldiers? The answer lies in the way the world is now interconnected as never before.
Over the past few years, China has been buying up US government debt and is now its biggest holder. If China were to dump this debt, it would totally screw with the economy. China could, hypothetically, win any number of foreign policy objectives by making it impossible for you to pay your mortgage.
Paul Bracken is a professor and expert in private equity at the Yale School of Management who serves on government advisory committees at the US Department of Defence. He was one of the key players behind the 2009 economic war game, and the smaller versions that have been played out since.
"The atmosphere that day was one of surprise at the magnitude of the threat," he says.
"The Pentagon people were used to dealing in terms of military battles: how many ships, how many missiles. This opened up whole new strategies."
Of course, economic warfare is not new. God's plagues on the Egyptian pharaoh's crops, as reported in the Book of Exodus, were an early skirmish. Winston Churchill created a Ministry of Economic Warfare, to run as a "new instrument of war" against Hitler. Embargoes and sanctions have been targeted at dozens of countries, from South Africa to the former Soviet Union.
But this is different. The markets are now global, the holdings in each other's finances deep, and the technical ability to manipulate them instantaneous. In the 1970s the West feared that its enemies had their fingers on a nuclear button. The modern equivalent may be China's ability to press the button on US Treasury bills.
China is, Professor Bracken says, "the huge threat", but Russia, with its oil and gas, has shown no compunction in waging economic war on its neighbours, and could do so on a larger scale.
Another possibility is that major oil-producing countries could destabilise America by switching to euros instead of dollars as the currency in which oil is priced - so-called "petro-dollar warfare". Or a terrorist organisation might trigger a financial crash via some kind of shady hedge fund or computer attack.
What the economic war game showed Professor Bracken was that military and economic decision-making has to be more unified. Banks and bonds are now weapons, just as much as bombs. "That makes the military nervous, as they had always been in charge of operations. That's why they know they need to understand this," Professor Bracken says.
Mr Rickards says that, "If you're going to confront the US military, you would spend billions.But if you can do so just as effectively in financial space, and it would cost less, why not?"
Perhaps Britain felt a taste of this last year, with some stockmarket shocks that wiped millions off three British companies. BT lost pound stg. 969 million ($1.5 billion) on one afternoon in August, Next lost pound stg. 275m. Security services had to probe the possibility that it was not technical faults, as initially supposed, but a concerted attack by a nation state.
John Bassett, a fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, says the British government is just waking up to the new order.
"If those were deliberate attacks on the London stockmarket, it was highly unlikely to be a criminal gang, much more likely an economic rival," he says. "This is a ruthless competition for global economic supremacy, and the West isn't winning."
At the end of that Pentagon session, the 80-odd players returned from their bunkers and assessed the damage.
China won, without so much as reaching for a gun. And the soldiers looked at each other and wondered if it was still only a game.