What Bolton needs to understand about Russia and history

The Saker

August 26, 2018What Bolton needs to understand about Russia and history

On 23 August, 2018, National Security Adviser to the President of the United States of America J. R. Bolton, using his auspices as the representative of the President of the United States of America, officially declared war on Russia.

J. R. Bolton had an official meeting with Patrushev, N. P., Secretary of the Russian Security Council, in Geneva. There was no after meeting joint statement, and this in and of itself says the meeting went nowhere. According to Tass News Russia:

“The Russian side’s statement dedicated to negotiations between Patrushev and Bolton obtained by TASS states that during the meeting in Geneva the parties brought up a wide range of issues, including, those concerning nuclear nonproliferation with regard to the Korean Peninsula problem and Iran’s nuclear program, the Russian-US treaties on the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles and the reduction of strategic offensive arms, the situation in various parts of the world, including the Middle East and North Africa, specifically Syria and Afghanistan as well as Europe, in particular Ukraine.

More: http://tass.com/politics/

One would hope that someone of Bolton’s long service would have developed somewhat of a sense of who is doing what, with which and to whom, but it is apparent that his distinguished service in the Maryland National Guard from 1970-1976 (odd, he managed to stay out of Vietnam during those turbulent times) and his appointment oriented times under R.Reagan and both Presidents Bush, did little to educate him in regards to the current, and perhaps past, world. That being said, perhaps Mr. Bolton needs a little education in regards to recent, and not so recent, history concerning Russia and USA.

In the early eighteen hundreds, a rather well known general named Napoleon had roughly the same attitude and designs on Russia as USA has today. When Russia did not knuckle under to the ever increasing and strident demands emanating from Paris, nothing would do but for General Napoleon to invade Russia, using the entire French army. As an aside, this ‘French’ army was about 40% French, the 60% was made up of a pretty good cross section of Europe both then and today, many ‘press ganged’ in to service by the French control of their countries, many also joining with alacrity with the thoughts of easily defeating Russia and looting the country to the bones.

On the route leading from Moskau west, then and today the Capitol of Russia, to what is eastern Poland today, if one is observant, one will see curious small, and some not so small, hillocks and mounds visible from the main road. Those are the burial mounts of the ‘French’ Army. As the army retreated with ever increasing speed, the roads were littered with the dead from the continuous skirmishes, the savage Russian Winter, and the ever more indignant locals whose villages and towns were looted to the very ground by the ‘French’ army advancing and retreating. Napoleon was dumb enough to retreat along the same route he took to Moskau, that route being picked clean for 30 kilometers on each side on the way to Moskau. On the retreat, there was nothing left but the local citizenry, those who survived, and their revenge was the stuff of legend. Read up on that, Mr. Bolton, and remember well what you read. Less than 20% of the ‘French army’ returned to Europe, the rest are buried or moldering in the forests of Russia.

As a curious little aside, the ‘French’ army crossed the river Berezina in it’s retreat. At that crossing point are two small islands in the river. Those islands were formed over the large numbers of dead, carriages and equipment that fell off the two hastily thrown up bridges over the Berezina or who tried to cross the freezing and ice filled waters of the river as the Russian Army approached and fought the French rear guard. Now, it is acknowledged that if Kutuzov had pushed a bit instead of keeping a somewhat distant but never ending pressure on the French army, it is conceivable that he could have captured General Napoleon at the crossing, but he didn’t and he didn’t. These islands are still there, Mr. Bolton. And to this day, ‘French’ remains are being found in that AO along with a never ending plethora of accouterments, weapons, bits and pieces of equipment, and French medals. Lots of French medals. Unbelievable numbers of French medals, decorations, ‘shoulder brushes’, remains of carriages, wagons, limbers, you name it.

In 1941, Germany invaded Russia, again with some of the same pretexts and in general, in my opinion, out of pure stupidity and cussedness. In November of 1941, the fighting was in the outskirts of Moskau. In April of 1945, the fighting was in and around Berlin. The context of the German Army was different from General Napoleon’s army in that roughly 65% of the German army invading Russia was German, the 35% consisted of volunteers from EVERY country in Europe plus parts of the armies of various German allies, notably being Romanian and Italian contingents. They died in their millions, as did Russians, and Germany died, too, never to rise again. To this day, we are finding the soldiers, and civilians, killed in that horrid epoch of history. But Russia did not die, nor did USA. Russia and USA were the only two powers to survive that hideous war, and Russia was in ruins from Moskau to her west borders, as was Europe. To your never ending horror, Russia rebuilt herself. Sans help from you.

However, since mid May of ’45, US has embarked on a somewhat adventurous international policy. And what has that brought you?

Korea. When they are shooting at you as you retreat to the demarcation line, you lost.

Vietnam. When they are shooting at you when you leave, you lost.

Afghan. When they are shooting at you when you run, you lost.

Iraq. When they are shooting at you when you withdraw, you lost.

Gruzya. Your HUMMV’s were kind of cute running around our village for a few days, but they were rapidly relegated to the scrap iron pile. You were also kind of cute when you asked for your equipment back after Gruzya, at your urging, went stupid and got their nostrils braided. If I remember correctly, President Putin told you that Russia is not in the habit of returning war trophies.

Libya. What happened to your gomik ‘ambassador’ there? And what bright light decided to send an openly gomik as ‘ambassador’ to a Muslim country? Have you taken leave of your senses?

Serbia. How many airframes did you lose? We know how many thousands of civilians you killed, and you can rest assured, the Serbians have not forgotten a single one of those many thousands of dead civilians.

Afghan, yet again. What, you learned nothing the first time? How many more body bags do you want?

Syria. You are still there, illegally by international law, UN regulations and Syrian law, and everyone is shooting at you.

And now, with your resurrection from the dead, you personally are back in play again, and your target this time, as ever, is Russia. Your demands, not all and not a request for negotiations but demands, during the meeting with Patroshev, N. P., were:

Get out of Syria. Sorry, but the Government of the Sovereign State of Syria invited Russia’s assistance to fight against your paid minions. You and yours, sir, were NOT invited to Syria and now you are standing there with your skivvies in your hands and The World is laughing at you. Bitter laughter, yes, but laughter just the same. As for the chemical attacks and countless atrocities against both civilians and Syrian Armed Forces, you and yours did it, you know it, Russia knows it, The World knows it, and you, like some fugitive from the insane asylum, continue with outright lies knowing full well The World knows you are lying.

Admit, and apologize, for the idiotic Brit mess with Skripal. Get real, you and the Brits poisoned that ex, and unsuccessful, spy, if he was indeed poisoned, no one has seen him since. Did you kill him? If Mother wanted him dead, he’d have been run over by a garbage truck or had a heart attack after eating one too many plates of those hideous fish and chips, or simply disappeared. Not all The World is as stupid as your electorate.

Return Krimea and Sevastopol to Ukraine. Are you on drugs? Do you have mental problems? The entire process of giving the administration of the Autonomous Republic of Krimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol to the Ukraine by Kruschov 60 year ago was and is illegal, ergo the process is null and void. Besides, The People have spoken. You want both entities back? Send in your best and try it. See above, ‘when they are shooting at you when you when you leave, you lost’. Problem in Krimea is, you will not leave, anyone you send to Krimea and Sevastopol will be counting trees for a long, very long, time if they don’t get thrown them off the cliffs of 35th Battery, just like your German and Romanian friends did to Russian wounded and prisoners on 03 July 1942.

Abandon Novorossiya to it’s fate. See above concerning drugs and mental problems. Do you honestly thing Russia will abandon 3 million people to the tender mercies of the Ukrainians, those who have publicly stated they will kill all the citizens of Novorossiya?

Here is a flash piece of news for you, Bolton. Russia has armed up. Your repeated violations of agreements, both written and ‘gentleman’s’, have left Russia no other choice but to assume you are planning an aggression. I can not fathom why you or your neocon buddies would think that Russia would sit and idly watch you move your weapons, including nuclear capable, to the very borders of Russia, and Russia would not arm up.

Now, here’s a little truism for you, sir, you who have not faced cold steel and the roar of the guns. You are working day and night to provoke Russia in to fighting. Even a functional idiot locked up in Yellow Dome knows that The World as we know it will cease to exist within 24 hours if it comes to war between US and Russia, and I can guaranty you, sir, that Russia will not back down. Ever. Neither I, nor you, nor our respective families, will survive a war between the two. You can wish, you can plan, you can pray (doubtful), but you and I won’t survive. However, the odds are I, my wife and most of our wonderful children will be gone before you are, and trust me, my friend, I’ll be sitting at the gates of Hell waiting for you.

To quote a quote from my writings in 2014, just for you. Damn your eyes, damn your soul, damn you to Hell, back to where you came from.

Juan

Books written by my very close friend and comrade in arms, Auslander. Read them, he’s a far better writer than I am.
Never The Last One. https://www.amazon.com/ A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
Sevastopol, The Third Defense. https://www.amazon.  Book 1, A Premonition. Set against a backdrop of real events and real places, the reader is left to filter fact from fiction.
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon. NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.

Advertisements

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

Image result for Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

August 23, 2018

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

By Kevin Barrett (Truth Jihad) for The Saker Blog

Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness: Iran’s “Trump Card” Against US-Israeli Aggression

Do religion, spirituality, and ethics have any strategic significance?

Increasingly, since the time of Machievelli, the Western answer to that question has been “no.” According to the dominant view of Western elites, religious factors are usually a strategic liability rather than an asset. A spiritual soldier, according to this view, is less willing to fight. An ethical commander is less willing to make the hard decisions that lead to victory. And a religious society is likely to be scientifically and technologically backwards, and therefore unequipped with the latest weapons systems and strategies.

This dominant Machievellian view has been influenced by Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes famously argued that humans have emerged from a state of nature, the war of all against all, by gradual conquests of ever-larger kingdoms, each of which is tyrannically ruled by a single sovereign. The sovereign tyrant crushes anyone who spreads disorder or challenges his authority, thereby pacifying his realm and facilitating commerce and technological innovation. All human progress, according to Hobbesians, is the product of tyranny. Therefore, tyranny is good! What’s more, by wars of aggression the tyrant enlarges the boundaries of his state, brings more peoples and lands into his realm, and thereby creates even more peace and prosperity. Therefore, wars of aggression are good![1]

The Machievellian-Hobbesian view, through a Nietzschean transmutation of values, takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is evil—tyranny and aggressive warfare—and redefines it as good. Simultaneously, it takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is good—resistance to tyranny and refusal to submit to, or perpetrate, aggression—and redefines it as evil.

Such a psychopathic philosophy of statecraft and war is clearly inimical to God-given human nature. By what process has our planet’s most technologically, economically, and politically powerful civilization adopted as its guiding principle a psychopathic philosophy that the 99% of humans who are not psychopaths—the vast majority of all populations, including those of psychopath-ruled countries—instinctively reject?

The triumph of psychopathy in Western statecraft is the product of the West’s post-Christian culture. Christianity, more than any other religion, rigorously preaches peace, as exemplified by the prophet Jesus’s (PBUH) injunction to “turn the other cheek,” his refusal to support anti-Roman militancy, and his insistence that “the meek will inherit the earth.” Unfortunately, even after the teachings of Jesus had spread, it became obvious that no then-existing human society could organize itself according to such principles and survive. Mainstream Christianity, largely authored by Paul and institutionalized by the Nicean Council, became the official religion of the warlike Roman Empire by emphasizing Jesus’s statement “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and telling people to let the psychopathic Caesars rule. This amounted to abdicating religion’s role as the foundation of human society, fostering a schizoid split between “good” religion and “evil” politics. (Why good people would and should allow their societies to be dominated by evil leaders was never adequately explained by Constantinian Christians.)

Western civilization was constructed around this schizoid split between religion, the realm of mere ideals, and a completely different and vastly uglier set of political and social realities. This framework fostered the emergence of Machievelli, who threw religion and its ideals out the window. As Christianity lost its hold over the West, materialist-atheist Machievellianism, barely tempered by wooly-headed and rationally-indefensible humanism, became the order of the day.

Today, psychopathic Machievellians rule the West. Their subjects, who are mainly either wooly-headed humanists or residual Christians, are not psychopaths. They feel an instinctive revulsion toward aggression and tyranny. So the Western rulers are forced to dupe their subjects by disguising aggression as defense, and disguising tyranny as “freedom” or “democracy.”

The history of US wars during the past five decades shows that psychopathic leaders can indeed dupe their subjects, at least for a certain period, into believing that an obvious war of aggression is actually defensive, and that they are fighting for “freedom” and “democracy” rather than tyranny. But such deceptions have an Achilles heel: They quickly wear off as the truth emerges and as the public tires of the unjust war.

The case of the US war on Vietnam exemplifies this process. During the period that US neocolonial aggression against Vietnam was relatively unknown to the public (the 1950s and early 1960s) it was possible to wage the war without encountering major problems with morale and public opinion. Then when it was necessary to escalate the war to the point that it could no longer be hidden from the public, US leaders orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin deception to create the illusion that the US was under attack and that North Vietnam was the aggressor. This deception, grotesquely obvious as it was, worked for a few years, thanks to the compliant media. But gradually the truth about the US war on Vietnam—that it constituted immoral aggression in service to tyranny—leaked out to the public. Soon the American people in general, and US troops in particular, turned against the war, making it unsustainable over the long term.

The same process happened fifteen years ago with the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars, planned many years before they were launched, were pre-legitimized by the false flag operation of September 11th, 2001, whose purpose was to create the impression that the coming wars were defensive responses to an unprovoked attack on America. Once again, as in the case of Vietnam, the ruse worked for a few years. But as the truth about US aggression and tyranny leaked out, the public, and a substantial segment of the military, once again turned against the wars.[2]

The history of the US wars on Vietnam and Iraq underlines two critically important strategic facts. First, the US cannot hope to win a war with air power alone; victory requires a substantial and politically problematic commitment of troops on the ground. Second, any major commitment of US troops can only be made under the pretext that the US is engaging in defense rather than aggression; and even when extraordinary means are used to create this pretext (as in the case of 9/11) the legitimizing effect quickly wears off in the face of determined resistance by the targets of US aggression. The more time goes by, the more the public and elements of the military turn against the war.

US decision makers are, for the most part, aware of the above-described facts. They know that smaller wars, where they can quickly declare victory and go home (as in Grenada and the Iraq war of 1990) are much more likely to be successful than larger and more ambitious wars (Vietnam and the post-9/11 Iraq invasion and occupation). They dread committing major US ground forces to any large scale land war in Asia, knowing that the results are almost certain to be negative, and quite possibly catastrophic. After the Iraq debacle, the idea of a major US occupation of another large Middle Eastern country is, for all practical purposes, politically unthinkable.

The above considerations illustrate an important asymmetry between US and Iranian capabilities in any prospective future conflict. US leaders are in the unenviable position of having to wage all-out psychological warfare against their own population in order to brainwash their people and troops into accepting ongoing hostilities. (Such brainwashing campaigns have become more difficult in the internet era.) They are also faced with the problem that the longer hostilities persist, the more the public and an element of the military is likely to turn against the war effort.

Iran’s leaders face a very different “morale curve” with respect to prospective hostilities with the US. The Iranian people know that any US aggression against their country is in fact aggression; there is no conceivable way that US leaders could trick Iran’s people into believing that a US attack on Iran was somehow “defensive.” Clearly Iran’s leaders will direct a population that, in accordance with God-given (non-psychopathic) human nature, will rally to the defense of their nation. Additionally, the very strong element of religion in Iran will contribute to the spiritual strength of a population ready to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary in warfare. And finally, the fact that Iran’s majority religion is Islam, which teaches that God not only authorizes but strongly encourages and rewards sacrificing in defensive warfare—a religious outlook institutionalized in the Islamic Republic—bodes well for Iran’s prospects in any war with the USA, and for its ability to deter such a war.

It is worth noting that the Machievellian-Hobbesian preference for a tyrannical and immoral sovereign is being tested by the presidency of Donald Trump. The immorality and tyrannical egotism of Trump have aroused fervent opposition to the man and his policies, both in the USA itself and around the world. It seems doubtful that an unpopular leader like Trump could successfully sustain any major, long-term military campaign against Iran, especially if it involved large numbers of “boots on the ground.” That Trump himself ran for president calling for a drawdown of the US presence in the Middle East, based on his recognition that the Iraq, Libya, and Syria wars have been disasters—a position that contrasted sharply with the more hawkish, interventionist posture of Hillary Clinton—makes it even unlikelier that he could betray and anger his supporters by launching an even more dangerous and difficult war on Iran. Not only would at least half of Trump’s supporters tend to oppose such a move, his extreme detractors, who are legion, would oppose it even more fervently. Any initial war fever, which Trump might hope would distract from his domestic problems, would quickly wear off.

Iran’s leadership, in marked contrast with America’s, is grounded in morals and ethics, not Machievellian-Hobbesian nihilism. Those morals and ethics derive from the religion of Islam, a 1400-year-old tradition that has proven to harmonize well with God-given human nature. Though the various segments of Iran’s population vary in their religious attitudes and behavior, the vast majority accept the basic morality and ethics that convince them, like all non-psychopathic humans, that aggression must be resisted. Thus Iran’s leadership finds itself in relative harmony with its population on the question of national self defense. That means that in any serious conflict with Trump’s USA, Iran will have staying power, while the US will wilt as the fire burns longer and hotter.

  1. For a detailed exposition of this view, see Ian Morris, War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). 
  2. The facts that 9/11 was a false flag, and that the 9/11 wars were primarily designed to promote Israel’s interests rather than America’s, turned a segment of the US military, and even some prominent strategists including Zbigniew Brzezinski, against those wars. See: SFRC Testimony — Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007 (http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf); “Dr. Alan Sabrosky: “100% Certain That 9/11 Was a Mossad Operation” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7xTsWsLbV4); Global Warfare: “We’re Going to Take out 7 Countries in 5 Years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran… – Gen. Wesley Clarke” (https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166). 

 

The Most Credible Arab Voice…

Hussein Samawarchi

A soothing voice, calm body language, and a friendly face. Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is on TV again.

Modern life does not leave too much time for television anymore. People have to run harder than ever to make ends meet; that is why, perhaps, they have become more selective regarding the programs they watch because the time spared for this activity is very limited. But, there’s always time to watch the Sayyed deliver his speech; if not for its calming and reassuring effect, then for a true understanding of what is happening in the region.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech commemorating the twelfth anniversary of victory against “Israel’s” last campaign of destruction was nothing less than what is always expected from the leader of the Lebanese Resistance: Dose after dose of encouragement for the common man based on informative current life events’ analysis. The Sayyed has never been known to have ever said anything untrue or exaggerated; his credibility is actually so high, it is said that the part of the “Israeli” public searching for the truth makes it a point to follow up on his television appearances.

Sayyed Nasrallah begins his speech with the usual courtesy he is famed to furnish for everyone. He gives thanks to the heroes of the battlefield along with the country’s armed forces and security forces and then moves on to thank the past and present presidents, prime ministers, and speakers of the parliament. He thanks the victims of the “Israeli” aggression and, generally, all the good people of the world. Gratitude did not spare Iran and Syria for their support.

The central topic of the Sayyed’s speech was the US scheme to assign “Israel” as the major force in the region and how the first phase of this plan was to eradicate Hezbollah to leave a void in the axis of countries refusing to sell the Palestinian cause. He said that “Israel’s” failure to wipe out Hezbollah delayed actioning the remaining phases and even helped in the further failure of breaking Syria and Iran.

The Sayyed explained the Zionist strategies and showed how they all crumbled down to a point where “Israel” now suffers, more than ever, from disarray on all levels; including the cabinet whose ministers fight among themselves continuously. On the other hand, he showed how the resistance and its allies are now, more than ever, stronger in every way.

Global intelligence services, according to the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, are among the parties waiting in line to open negotiations with the Syrian government. Now that it is a matter of little time until Syria declares total victory, the issue of repatriation of foreign terrorists has become a priority in the worries’ scale. The Europeans will not back up a Trump request to give the Golan Heights to “Israel” for good and risk losing relations with the Syrian government whose security cooperation is much needed.

Trump’s administration is slowly facing a growing international isolation, Saudi Arabia has lost its top men in Malaysia and Pakistan as well as its war on Yemen, and Israel who has supported the Syrian so-called rebels in every imaginable way has lost all bets against the legal Syrian government. The situation faced by the enemies of the righteous axis is disastrous.

This was just a part of what the Sayyed had discussed. He promised to continue with new topics and expand some of the ones he had already mentioned when he gives his next speech on the occasion of the victory against “Israel’s” losing tools in Lebanon, the terrorists of “ISIS” and others.

Listening to the Secretary-General of Hezbollah is a true pleasure. No one else can lift away the frustration caused by the Zionist media machine like he does. His strength and positive attitude are contagious just like his tone of voice and manners are loveable. The man is very real in words and actions; he deals with people’s daily concerns. Sayyed Nasrallah warned against falling for shady social media news and statements. He extended a wish that everyone contemplates what they have heard or seen before taking a position. Has social media not proved to be the new age epidemic of modern societies in so many instances?

Thank God for the presence of such decent and professional names in the journalism industry as Mr. Imad Marmal, Mrs. Manar Sabbagh and many more. They are the pillars that hold the ceiling of truth high in the media world that Sayyed Nasrallah is warning us about.

It would be unwarranted to worry about Lebanon in the presence of men like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Source: Al-Ahed News

Related Posts

Philippines’s Duterte to US: Who Are You to Warn Us

August 18, 2018

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has blamed the United States for trying to hamper the modernization of his country’s army and supplying used military equipment to Manila, according to local media.

“Is that the way you treat an ally and you want us to stay with you for all time?  Who are you to warn us?” he pointed out.

Duterte added that if the Philippines buys a submarine from the US, it will “implode, just like the helicopters” that it earlier purchased.

The criticism came after US Assistant Defense Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, Randall Schriver, cautioned Manila against purchasing Russian military hardware.

“If they were to proceed with purchasing major Russian equipment, I don’t think that’s a helpful thing to do [in our] alliance and I think ultimately we can be a better partner than the Russians can be,” Schriver said.

He made the remarks amid media reports that Moscow had offered the Philippine government its help in purchasing Russian submarines and that Manila is currently considering the proposal.

The deal, in particular, stipulates the allocation of a subsidized loan to Manila, which would be repaid over several years.

SourceSputnik

ماليزيا وباكستان وإيران وتركيا: الدينار الذهبي الإسلامي

أغسطس 13, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– يعرف خبراء المال والاقتصاد أن الفارق كبير بين دعوات البعض للعودة إلى الذهب كضامن للاحتياط النقدي للحكومات كضامن لعملتها الوطنية، وبين إصدار عملة جديدة لدولة بعينها أو لدول عدة معاً. وبالمقابل معنى أن تكون العملة الجديدة ذهبية، خصوصاً عندما تكون جامعة لمدى يتخطى دولة واحدة، فالخيار الأول بات غير واقعي منذ خروج الولايات المتحدة الأميركية من اتفاقية بريتون وودز التي أقرّت عام 1945 وربطت الدولار بالذهب بسعر ثابت مقابل اعتماد الدولار عملياً لتسعير سائر العملات، وفي عام 1971 فكت واشنطن ربط الدلاور بالذهب وبقي الدولار مهيمناً على سوق العملات، وأي عودة تستدعي موافقة أميركية مستحيلة، وشمولاً عالمياً مستحيلاً أيضاً، هذا عدا عن ميل الحكومات بلا استثناء للحفاظ على حرية إصدرات نقدية بلا عبء توفير تغطيتها الذهبية وتحمل نتائجها التضخمية للالتفاف والمناورة على الأزمات التي تواجهها في الأسواق والموازنات.

– معلوم أن إصدار عملة جديدة في أي بلد هو شأن سيادي خاص، أكانت ذهبية أم ورقية، كحال الجنيه الاسترليني والجنيه الكندي الذهبي المابل ومثلها رغم قلة التداول عملات الباندا الصينية والجاموس والنسر الأميركيين، وكذلك إصدار عملة عابرة لعدد من الدول شأن يخص الدول المتعاقدة كما هو حال اليورو بين دول الاتحاد الأوروبي، والذي مرّ بمرحلة تساكن مؤقتة بين دول الاتحاد قبل أن يصبح بديلاً كلياً لها، كما هو معلوم أن الخروج الأميركي من ربط الدولار بالذهب عائد إلى كون ثلاثية العملية المالية الأميركية عبر العالم تتكوّن من المكانة التجارية للبضائع الأميركية كشريك تجاري أول لكل بلاد العالم، والمكانة المصرفية للمصارف الأميركية كمهيمن على اللعبة المصرفية، والضلع الثالث لهذا الثنائي هو العقوبات التي استفحل استخدامها، وصارت قيداً حقيقياً على الاستقلال الاقتصادي والنمو لاقتصادات العالم، وصار التفلّت منها ومن آثارها المدمرة أمام التوحش الأميركي في اللجوء إليها مرهون بتحرير التجارة البينية للدول، أي عمليات المتاجرة التي لا تتم مع أميركا ولا بواسطتها، من قيد المرور بالمصارف الأميركية والعملة الأميركية.

– تصطدم محاولات اللجوء إلى العملات القوية الموجودة في التداول لإجراء العمليات المالية والتجارية بواسطتها، بمخاطرة تهرّب المصارف الكبرى في دول المنشأ للعملات القوية من إغضاب المصارف الأميركية وخشيتها من التعرّض للعقوبات الأميركية بداعي المضاربة غير المشروعة على الدولار، ولذلك تأتي الحاجة لبدائل من خارج السياق التقليدي المألوف، خصوصاً في تبادل السلع الاستراتيجية كالنفط والغاز، والتي تشكل حساباتها المالية مصدر قوة لسيطرة الدولار الأميركي وعبره السياسات الأميركية في العالم، وسبباً للتحكم الأميركي بدول وحكومات، ومحاولات إخضاع وترويض للبعض الآخر، وفي الأشهر الأخيرة دخل العالم مع حالة من اللاعقلانية الأميركية تهدد بتدمير اقتصادات دول، في ظل أزمة اقتصادية أميركية يجري السعي لمواجهتها بالاستناد لسياسة ضرائبية وجمركية تتغوّل تدريجاً لتصير أقرب للعقوبات وفرض الغرامات والخوّات على الاقتصاد العالمي، وفي ظل عجز أميركي عن فرض الهيمنة عبر القوة العسكري فتحل العقوبات بديلاً منها، وصار البديل العقلاني للتعامل الحصري بالدولار الأميركي، وليس للبديل الدائم ولا الشامل عنه ضرورة اقتصادية وتنموية وسياسية للعديد من الدول.

– عام 2003 قام الاقتصادي الآسيوي رئيس حكومة ماليزيا يومها والعائد إلى الحكم الآن، مهاتير محمد، وأثناء انعقاد القمة الإسلامية في بلده وترؤسه لها بطرح مشروع الدينار الذهبي الإسلامي، الذي لاقى ترحيباً نظرياً واسعاً يومها، وبات واضحاً أن جهوداً أميركية حثيثة بذلت لإطاحته ومن ثم إطاحة مهاتير محمد نفسه، وليس خافياً كم كان للسعودية دور محوري في المهمتين. ولم يكن بعيداً عن الإسناد للموقف السعودي بطلب أميركي كل من حكومتي تركيا، العضو في حلف الأطلسي والساعية لنمو تحت العباءة الأميركية يومها، وباكستان الواقعة تحت نفوذ أميركي سعودي مزدوج، والمعتمدة على الدعم المالي السعودي والدعم العسكري الأميركي، يومها، وفيما رحّبت إيران بالمشروع ذهب ترحيبها أدراج الرياح بصفتها دولة واقعة تحت الحصار والعقوبات من الجانب الأميركي وقد وجدت متنفساً في المشروع.

– اليوم وفيما تتحرّر باكستان بفوز حزب الإنصاف ورئيسه عمران خان المناوئين لأميركا والسعودية بالأغلبية النيابية، وتصادم أنقرة وواشنطن على الصعيدين السياسي والاقتصادي وصولاً لحرب عملات تخوضها واشنطن على العملة التركية. ويعود مهاتير محمد إلى سدة القرار الماليزي بمواجهة الهيمنة الأميركية السعودية، وتستعدّ إيران لمواجهة حزمات العقوبات المتصاعدة، يبدو التطلّع للعودة لمشروع الدينار الذهبي الإسلامي أكثر من ضرورة للدول التي يشكل مجموعها السكاني، قرابة نصف مليار نسمة، ويشكل حجم اقتصاداتها ما مجموعه قرابة ثلاثة تريليونات دولار، وفيما تشكل إيران الدولة الوحيدة المنتجة للنفط والغاز تشكل تركيا وباكستان أهم ممرات لأنابيب النفط والغاز وتشكل ماليزيا اهم دولة لمصافي النفط وصناعة البتروكيمياويات، وتشكل تجارة النفط والغاز وصناعة المشتقات قرابة نصف تريليون دولار في الدول الأربع وحدها كقطاع يمكن البدء به فوراً باعتماد الدينار الذهبي الإسلامي كعملة لتبادل النفط والغاز ومشتقاتهما وصناعاتهما، بينما يوضع الدينار الذهبي الإسلامي في سلة العملات المتداولة عالمياً، ويمكن تبادل السلع بواسطته مع دول كروسيا والصين وسائر دول البريكس، وعدد من الدول الأوروبية، عدا أن وضعه في التداول سيتكفّل وحده عبر تسعير العملات المحلية بالقياس له بحماية هذه العملات من الحرب الأميركية عليها وتردّداتها.

 

Related Videos

Related Articles

United Against Swindlers

June 08, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Reported by Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday, the Philippine police arrested 8 Israeli citizens for online fraud. The Israeli suspects are said to have managed an online investment fraud apparatus of 500 that scammed clients around the globe.

The JPost reports that “the suspects are said to have lured their victims into investing in foreign stocks in a London-based company [presumably fictional], and then taking their money through an app after obtaining their bank account and credit card details.”

The Israelis were arrested while in the act of “managing, operating and manning” the swindling adventure. The Filipinos were charged with communicating and doing the online transactions with foreign clients from Europe, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Russia, etc.(Perhaps not with the United States that now holds similar Israeli fraudsters under Federal indictment.)

None of that should take us by surprise. Israel and Israelis role have been a  driving force in phone and internet fraud as  has been well documented by criminal experts (including the FBI)  in general and the Jewish press in particular.

On 21 December 2017 The Jewish Telegraphic Agency news service published an article titled “Bitcoin fraud could be the next big thing for swindlers in Israel.” It revealed that that “Israel is shaping up to be a hub for cryptocurrency swindling.” It “has happened before,” the article continued, explaining how over the previous decade more than 100 “binary options” companies set up shop in Israel, “forming the core of a global industry” which swindled online investors out of billions. The “binary options” scam was eventually made illegal in Israel—that is, for a time Israeli law forbade the selling of the scam to Jews inside Israel, however it was legal to sell to unsuspecting clients, presumably goyim,  around the globe. To be clear, not all trading in binary options is necessarily fraudulent, it was the Israeli version that featured prices from a ‘trading platform’ that was manipulated by the options’ sellers or their cohorts.

The Binary options ‘industry’ was eventually outlawed in Israel for all clients but not on moral grounds, but rather because it was “causing anti-Semitisim.”

Shortly after the “binary options” swindle was outlawed, the JTA article continued, Israel Securities Authority Chairman Shmuel Hausner was quoted as saying that he was “very troubled” by the possibility that binary options cheats would turn fraudulent selling of  cryptocurrencies into the next big (Israeli) scam.

The crucial question that this provokes  is – why? Why are Israel and Israelis at the  hub of such flagrantly fraudulent industries?  Wasn’t  Zionism’s promise to bring to life a new ethical Hebrew who is proletarian and productive? Instead I wonder  how long will it take before JVP sees the need to form a new activist brigade of JBS (Jews against Bitcoin Swindlers)?

To Support Gilad’s Lega Defence Fund

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk). 

حكاية إيران وكوريا مع أميركا وأوروبا: الجغرافيا السياسية تغيّرت مع الحرب السورية

حكاية إيران وكوريا مع أميركا وأوروبا: الجغرافيا السياسية تغيّرت مع الحرب السورية

مايو 29, 2018

– كشفت العنتريات الأميركية في الملف النووي لكوريا الشمالية هزال السياسة الخارجية والأمنية لإدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب، التي تلاقى مستشار أمنها القومي جون بولتون ونائب الرئيس مايكل بنس، على تبشيرها بالخيار الليبي، واضطر رئيسها ترامب نفسه لنفي التشبيه وثم الإصرار على بقاء التفاوض رغم الإعلان الكوري عن التشكيك في جدواه. وعاد فأعلن إلغاء القمة مع الزعيم الكوري بسبب الصدّ والممانعة الكوريين، ليعود فيوسّط رئيس كوريا الجنوبية ويرسل وفداً إلى كوريا الشمالية يتبعه وصول وزير الخارجية مايك بومبيو لتقديم ضمانات رسمية طلبتها كوريا للإبقاء على القمة، ويعلن ترامب مجدداً أنه يتطلّع لعقد القمة ويعد كوريا بالمَنّ والسلوى.

– بالمقابل بدت أميركا متشدّدة ومتصلّبة وفي منحى تصعيدي تجاه الملف النووي الإيراني، وصولاً لعدم سماع أصوات الاستغاثة الأوروبية بعدم تطبيق العقوبات على شركاتها ومصارفها التي ستبقى ضمن خط التعامل التجاري مع إيران من ضمن التزام الحكومات الأوروبية بالتفاهم الموقع والمصدّق عليه من مجلس الأمن الدولي برضا وقبول واشنطن نفسها، حتى عندما بلغت الأصوات الأوروبية حدّ التحذير من أنها ستنفرد عن أميركا وتصون التفاهم لم تلقَ إصغاء واشنطن، وترافق التصعيد الأميركي مع تهديد إسرائيلي متواصل وتصعيد محسوب ومتقطع على الجبهة السورية تحت عنوان الدعوة لانسحاب إيران وحزب الله، يرافقها طلب أميركي مشابه، وظهرت إلى العلن حملة عقوبات أميركية وخليجية ذات مغزى سياسي تستهدف حزب الله، رغم عدم قيمتها العملية.

– أمران جديدان على حسابات المحلّلين والسياسيين أظهرتهما الأيام، الأول لهاث أميركي نحو القمة مع زعيم كوريا الشمالية رغم فقدان المهابة بعد كل ما تعرّضت له القمة، وتمسّك أوروبي بالتفاهم النووي مع إيران والالتزام بتخطّي عقدة العقوبات الأميركية بما يُطمئن إيران لمصالحها بعدما حسمت أنّها تلتزم بالتفاهم بقدر ما يلبّي هذه المصالح. فهل هذه بدايات لتبلور مشهد دولي جديد، وهل بدأ زمن تفكّك الغرب الذي عرفناه تقليدياً بقيادة أميركية؟ وهل تلعب الجغرافيا السياسية التي جذبت روسيا كلاعب إقليمي لعبتها الآن مع أوروبا بعدما صارت أميركا لاعباً إقليمياً في شرق آسيا بقوة الجغرافيا السياسية ومفاعيلها ذاتها؟

– الأكيد أن زلزالاً شهدته العلاقات الدولية لا زال في بداياته، والأكيد أن الأحكام المسبقة أو التقليدية لا تصلح لفهم تداعيات هذا الزلزال، والأكيد أن تيويم الاستنتاجات والخلاصات يحتاج لمرونة في التفكير وتلقي المواقف وقياسها ومحاولة فهمها. ومَن يراقب التحوّل الذي شهدته التصرفات الروسية خلال ثلاثة أعوام منذ قرار التموضع العسكري في سورية وتحمّل تبعاته كقرار استراتيجي يحمل تحدياً واضحاً وعلنياً لما كان سائداً من قواعد رسمتها أميركا على الساحة الدولية عموماً، وساحة المنطقة خصوصاً، ويراقب تدريجياً ما أصاب الاتحاد الأوروبي من ملامح تفكك بدأت طلائعها مع الانسحاب البريطاني، وما لحق الاتحاد الأوروبي من ارتباك تجاه كيفية التأقلم مع العالم الجديد الذي يبدو قيد الولادة، سواء لجهة كيفية التعامل مع الحرب في سورية وعليها، أو في التعامل مع إيران، أو في التعامل مع روسيا، وما في كل ذلك من ارتباك وتذبذب، ومقابله العلاقات الأوروبية الأميركية، وكذلك مَن يراقب الانكفاء الأميركي العملي من ملفات المنطقة رغم بقاء ملامح انتشار عسكري وسياسي، انكفاء عبر عنه الانسحاب السلبي من التفاهم النووي الإيراني دون السعي لإسقاط التفاهم ولا الذهاب لحرب يفرضها أي مؤشر لعودة إيران لتخصيب اليورانيوم، وكذلك الانسحاب الأميركي من ملف تسوية القضية الفلسطينية، والاكتفاء بإعلان القدس عاصمة لكيان الاحتلال ولو كانت النتيجة تفجير مشاريع التفاوض ونقل الشارع الفلسطيني وقواه السياسية إلى حالة مواجهة بذلت واشنطن الكثير لتفاديها.. مَن يراقب كل ذلك لا بد أن يكتشف أن قواعد السياسة الدولية تتغيّر نوعياً، وأن ما جعل روسيا تترجم عالميتها بالتحوّل لقوة إقليمية في المنطقة، هو ذاته يجعل أوروبا كذلك، ويدفع أميركا بقوة الجغرافيا إلى خارج المنطقة، ويجذبها نحو التحوّل قوة إقليمية في منطقة أخرى يمسّها كل تحوّل فيها في الأمن والاقتصاد، هي شرق آسيا وليس ما عُرف بالشرق الأوسط، الذي بيقيها على صلة به التزامها بأمن «إسرائيل» وأمن النفط باتصاله بالحكم السعودي.

– عندما تقرّر واشنطن الانسحاب من اتفاقية المناخ والتخلّي بموجب ذلك عن دورها كقوة عظمى قيادية للعالم، فهي تقرّر العودة للمنافسة التي حرمها الغرب نفسه بقيادة أميركية في مرحلة الرهان على رفع أكلاف الإنتاج من بوابة منع تدمير البيئة، وفرض بقيادة أميركية شروطاً على الصناعات تزيد كلفتها تحت شعار حماية البيئة، وتمنح الغرب وصناعاته قدرة تنافسية أعلى، لتأتي واشنطن معلنة بانسحابها أنها عاجزة عن المنافسة بهذه الشروط وأن اقتصادها لا يحتملها، والمنافس هنا هو باقي دول الغرب في أوروبا وكل من الصين واليابان وكوريا الجنوبية في الشرق. وعندما تلحق واشنطن ذلك بقرارات متتابعة برفع الرسوم الجمركية على الحديد والصلب، وصناعة السيارات، وتليها بإعلان الخروج من اتفاقية «نفتا» التي تربطها بدول أميركا الجنوبية للأسباب ذاتها، فهي تقرّر الاحتماء وراء الجدران، جدران السياسة بالانسحاب من قيادة التسويات حيث لا جدوى من الحروب ولا قدرة على خوضها، وجدران الاقتصاد، بالانسحاب من التفاهمات التي شكلت اتفاقية المناخ وتشكيل منظمة التجارة العالمية، لضمان حرية انتقال البضائع، ذروة الحركة الأميركية فيها نحو العولمة.

– سقوط العولمة هو الاستنتاج الأهم الذي يحكم العالم اليوم في ضوء الزلزال الذي مثّلته الحرب السورية، وفشل السيطرة الأميركية عليها، وتبلور معادلات دولية جديدة بضوئها، تُعيد رسم مفاهيم الأمن القومي والاقتصادي للدول الغربية بصورة لا تتيح بقاء أميركا وأوروبا في ضفة واحدة، بل ربّما تؤسس لتقارب روسي أوروبي، وتنافس ومساكنة أميركية صينية، من موقع دور وفعل الجغرافيا السياسية والاقتصادية، في زمن باتت ترسم فيه البحار مناطق الأقاليم الجديدة، وفقاً لما تميّز بكشفه الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد بنظريته عن البحار الخمسة، التي تجعل روسيا وأوروبا وما عُرفَ تقليدياً بالشرق الأوسط وإيران وتركيا والخليج ضمناً، منطقة إقليمية واحدة، فالقضيتان الجوهريتان لأمن أوروبا هما النازحون والإرهاب، ومصدرهما زعزعة الاستقرار في الشرق الأوسط التقليدي. وهي زعزعة لا تزعج أميركا، وتضاف إليهما مخاطر مواجهة مع إيران التي تملك ترسانة صاروخية تقع أوروبا في مداها، وتتحمّل أوروبا لتفادي المواجهة فاتورة الانكفاء الأميركي لإدارة ملف إيران النووي بما لا يزيد درجة الخطر بذهاب إيران للتخصيب الخطير، بينما أولويات أميركا كورية وصينية، أمنياً واقتصادياً، فواشنطن في مدى صواريخ نووية كورية جاهزة، وتحت تأثير ديون تملكها الصين، وفي مواجهة منافسة اقتصادية قوتها المحورية تمثلها الصين وبنسب أقل اليابان وكوريا الجنوبية وأوروبا.

– هذا ما يفسّر الموقف الأوروبي المخالف لواشنطن في قضية القدس، وفي الملف النووي الإيراني، وفي ملفات ستتبلور أوضح تباعاً، كالحرب السورية والحرب في اليمن، وبالتالي تغليب أوروبا للغة التسويات على العنتريات والمواجهات، عنتريات يقودها كيان الاحتلال والكيان السعودي، ككيانين هيجينين لا تقرّر السياسة فيهما لغة المصالح، واحد لكونه مصطنعاً سكانياً بقوة الاستيطان، وآخر لأنه مصطنع اقتصادياً بقوة النفط، بينما ولاعتبارات الجغرافيا السياسية نفسها بدأ التحوّل التركي، ولو سار بطيئاً، فهو لن يعود إلى الوراء.

Related Videos

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: