Editor’s Note: We the People have been betrayed by our own federal and state governments. attacked by a coordinated efforts by the Intel community, the Department of Defense, The Pentagon, and four U.S. Presidents (Clinton, Bush, Obama & Biden) who have committed horrendous acts of treason against the U.S. Constitution and the citizens of the United States.
Several days ago Lahaina, Maui, Hawai’i was bombed by Direct Energy Weapon (DEW) lasers from space, a planned demolition (like the World Trade Center on 9/11) to make room for an AI governed smart city. It was accomplished under the cover of a distant hurricane with high winds when the U.S. Navy has coincidentally been out of port the day before. They blamed it all on climate change.
🚨🚨🚨I’ve seen many videos with the same message from the people of Hawaii
Only FEMA and the RED CROSS are ‘allowed to help’ while ordinary people are getting destroyed
This young man says that there are 5 containers behind the RITZ, Carlton hotel in Lahaina, full of… pic.twitter.com/DwvWBzgDg8
— Kevin – WE THE PEOPLE❤️ – DAD🦁 🐉 🔥 (@bambkb) August 14, 2023
👀 Is it a coincidence the Maui Police Chief, John Pelletier, was Coincidentally the Incident Commander in the 2017 Las Vegas Country Music Mass Shooting?
A controversial forecast by Deagel, a global intelligence and consulting firm, recently gained attention for its startling prediction of a significant depopulation event by 2025. While initially dismissed as a speculative estimation, current events and emerging trends have led many to question whether there may be more to Deagel’s forecast than meets the eye.
Recent reports from the Governments of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and various European countries have brought forth troubling revelations, among which is confirmation of a staggering number of excess deaths, reaching over two million since the mass roll-out of Covid-19 injections.
A troubling 120,000 excess deaths have also been recorded among the USA’s infants, children and young adults as of week 40 of 2022, and a curious rise in excess deaths among children across Europe has been recorded ever since the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extended the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection to children in the middle of 2021.
With further Government figures confirming mortality rates are highest among the vaccinated in every single age group per 100,000 population, serious questions are now being raised about the accuracy and potential truth behind Deagel’s apocalyptic depopulation predictions.
What is Deagel? The Deagel corporation is a minor branch of US military intelligence, one of the many secretive organizations which collect data for high-level decision-making purposes and prepares confidential briefing documents for agencies like the National Security Agency, the United Nations, and the World Bank.
It is known to have contributed to a Stratfor report on North Korea. With this kind of pedigree, Deagel should be seen as a legitimate player in the intelligence community and not merely a disinformation asset.
This means its population predictions for 2025, as well as its industrial output predictions on a nation-by-nation basis, are not mere fantasy but instead based on strategic assumptions which are shared and well understood by other players in the intelligence community.
What has Deagel Predicted? Deagel.com’s [infamous] 2025 forecast was removed from their website sometime in 2020. However, thanks to the Wayback Machine / Internet Archive, we are able to view the original predictions before discovered by critical thinkers.
Deagel predicted in 2020 that the United Kingdom would see its population decline by 77.1% by the year 2025. Deagel predicted in 2020 that the United States would see its population decline by 68.5 % by the year 2025. Read more…
The UN is sending more observers to Zaporozhye after the Kakhovka dam disasterIAEA issues warning about Europe’s largest nuclear plant.
It is “critical” for the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant to have continued access to water in order to prevent a reactor meltdown, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general Rafael Grossi said on Wednesday.
Europe’s largest atomic power station relies on the Kakhovka reservoir for water to cool its six reactors. However, the water levels have dropped by 2.8 meters since the Kakhovka dam broke early on Tuesday. Once the water level is below 12.7 meters, the ZNPP will no longer be able to pump water from the reservoir, Grossi warned.
“As the full extent of the dam’s damage remains unknown, it is not possible to predict if and when this might happen,” the IAEA director said, but at the current rate of 5-7 centimeters per hour, that could be “within the next two days.”
ZNPP is building up water reserves while it still can, Grossi noted, citing reports from the IAEA experts who are on site. He intends to visit ZNPP next week and bring additional observers to strengthen the agency’s presence at the facility.
“Now more than ever, the IAEA’s reinforced presence at the [ZNPP] is of vital importance to help prevent the danger of a nuclear accident and its potential consequences for the people and the environment at a time of increased military activity in the region,” Grossi said.
The possible loss of the plant’s main source of cooling water further complicates an already extremely difficult and challenging nuclear safety and security situation.
The Zaporozhye NPP is Europe’s largest atomic power station, with six reactor cores capable of generating a gigawatt of electricity each. Russian troops have controlled it since March last year. The region in which it is located voted to join Russia in September 2022, though Ukraine claims it is illegally occupied.
Russia has accused Ukraine of destroying the Kakhovka dam and causing widespread flooding in Kherson Region. President Vladimir Putin called it a “barbaric act”amounting to terrorism. Moscow says that Kiev is trying to secure the flank of its forces so it can bring up reserves after a series of failed assaults on the Zaporozhye front.
The IAEA deployed an observer mission at the ZNPP in September 2022. Prior to that, the station and its environs had been repeatedly targeted by Ukrainian artillery, which Kiev admitted at one point. Just before the IAEA mission arrived, Ukrainian commandos also attempted to seize the facility but were driven back. Russia has provided evidence of Ukrainian attacks to the UN, which has stubbornly avoided assigning blame.
In part due to the Ukrainian artillery activity, five of the six reactors at ZNPP have been shut down, with one continuing to operate at a low level to maintain power to the facility. They all require continued cooling to prevent a fuel meltdown and possible radioactive release.
It’s been rightly said that “he who holds the gold makes the rules.”
After World War 2, the US had the largest gold reserves in the world, by far. Along with winning the war, this let the US reconstruct the global monetary system around the dollar.
The new system, created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, tied the currencies of virtually every country in the world to the US dollar through a fixed exchange rate. It also tied the US dollar to gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce.
The dollar was said to be “as good as gold.”
The Bretton Woods system made the US dollar the world’s premier reserve currency. It compelled other countries to store dollars for international trade or to exchange them with the US government for gold at the promised price.
However, it was doomed to fail.
Runaway spending on warfare and welfare caused the US government to print more dollars than it could back with gold at the promised price.
By 1967, the number of dollars circulating had drastically increased relative to the amount of gold backing them. This encouraged foreign countries to exchange their dollars for gold, draining the US gold supply at an alarming rate and collapsing the London Gold Pool. At this point, it was clear this system was breaking down.
On Sunday night, August 15, 1971, President Nixon interrupted the scheduled TV programs and made a surprise announcement to the nation—and the world. He announced the unilateral end of the Bretton Woods system and severed the dollar’s last tie to gold.
The end of the dollar’s gold backing had profound geopolitical consequences.
Most critically, it eliminated the main reason foreign countries stored large amounts of US dollars and used the US dollar for international trade. As a result, oil-producing countries began to demand payment in gold instead of rapidly depreciating dollars.
It was clear the US would have to create a new monetary system to stabilize the dollar. So it concocted a new scheme… and chose Saudi Arabia as its accomplice. This agreement came to be known as the “petrodollar system.”
The US handpicked Saudi Arabia because of its vast petroleum reserves and dominant position in the global oil market.
In essence, the petrodollar system was an agreement that the US would guarantee the House of Saud’s survival. In exchange, Saudi Arabia would do three things.
First, it would use its dominant position in OPEC to ensure that all oil transactions would only happen in US dollars.
Second, it would recycle hundreds of billions of US dollars from annual oil revenue into US Treasuries. This lets the US issue more debt and finance previously unimaginable budget deficits.
Third, it would guarantee the price of oil within limits acceptable to the US and prevent another oil embargo.
The petrodollar system gave foreign countries another compelling reason to hold and use the dollar. And it preserved the dollar’s unique status as the world’s top reserve currency.
But… why oil?
Oil is the largest and most strategic commodity market in the world.
As you can see in the chart below, it dwarfs all other major commodity markets combined. The annual production value of the oil market is ten times bigger than the gold market, for example.
Every country needs oil. And if foreign countries need US dollars to buy oil, they have a compelling reason to hold US dollars even if they are not backed by a promise to redeem them in gold.
Think about it… If France wants to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, it must purchase US dollars on the foreign exchange market to pay for the oil first.
This creates a huge artificial market for US dollars and differentiates the US dollar from a purely local currency, like the Mexican peso.
The dollar is just a middleman. It’s used in countless transactions, amounting to trillions of dollars that have nothing to do with US products or services.
Since the oil market is enormous, it acts as a benchmark for international trade. If foreign countries are already using dollars for oil, it’s easier to use the dollar for other international trade.
In addition to nearly all oil sales, the US dollar is used for about 80% of all international transactions.
Ultimately, the petrodollar boosts the US dollar’s purchasing power by enticing foreigners to soak up dollars.
The petrodollar system has helped create a deeper, more liquid market for the dollar and US Treasuries. It has also helped the US keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be, allowing the US government to finance enormous deficits it otherwise would be unable to.
Multi-trillion deficits would otherwise be impossible without destroying the currency through money printing.
It’s hard to overstate how much the petrodollar system benefits the US. It’s the bedrock of the US financial system and has underpinned the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency since the 1970s.
That’s why the US government protects it so fiercely. It needs the system to survive.
World leaders who have challenged the petrodollar have ended up dead.
Take Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, for example. Each led a large oil-producing country—Iraq and Libya, respectively. And both tried to sell their oil for something other than US dollars before US military interventions led to their deaths.
Of course, there were other reasons the US toppled Saddam and Gaddafi. But protecting the petrodollar was a serious consideration, at the very least.
When countries like Iraq and Libya challenge the petrodollar system, it’s one thing. The US military can dispatch them with ease.
However, it’s a whole other dynamic when China (and Russia) undermine the petrodollar system… which is happening in a big way right now.
China and Russia are the only countries with sophisticated enough nuclear arsenals to go toe-to-toe with the US up to the top of the military escalation ladder.
In other words, the US military can’t attack Russia and China with impunity because they can match each move up to all-out nuclear war—the very top of the military escalation ladder.
For this reason, the US is deterred from entering a direct military conflict with China and Russia—even though they are about to strike a fatal blow to the petrodollar system.
US Sanctions Accelerate Demise of Petrodollar
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US government launched its most aggressive sanctions campaign ever.
Exceeding even Iran and North Korea, Russia is now the most sanctioned nation in the world.
“This is financial nuclear war and the largest sanctions event in history,” said a former US Treasury Department official.
He said, “Russia went from being part of the global economy to the single largest target of global sanctions and a financial pariah in less than two weeks.”
As part of this, the US government seized the US dollar reserves of the Russian central bank—the accumulated savings of the nation. (Washington did the same to Afghanistan’s dollar reserves after the Taliban took Kabul.)
It was a stunning illustration of the dollar’s political risk. The US government can seize another sovereign country’s dollar reserves at the flip of a switch.
The Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “If Russian Currency Reserves Aren’t Really Money, the World Is in for a Shock,” noted:
“Sanctions have shown that currency reserves accumulated by central banks can be taken away. With China taking note, this may reshape geopolitics, economic management and even the international role of the U.S. dollar.”
The head of the Russian Parliament recently called the US dollar a “candy wrapper” but not the candy itself. In other words, the dollar has the outward appearance of money but is not real money.
It’s important to remember some simple facts.
#1: Russia is the world’s largest energy producer.
#2: China is the world’s largest energy importer.
#3: Russia is China’s largest oil supplier.
And now that the US has banned Russia from the dollar system, there is an urgent need for a credible system capable of handling hundreds of billions worth of oil sales outside the US dollar and financial system.
The Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) is that system. The maturation of China’s alternative to the petrodollar is a big reason why the massive amount of energy trade between Russia and China occurs in yuan, not US dollars.
Further, Washington has threatened to sanction China similarly for years.
These threats against China may be a bluff, but if the US government carried them out—as it recently did against Russia—it would be like dropping a financial nuclear bomb on Beijing. Without access to dollars, China would have previously struggled to import oil and engage in international trade. As a result, its economy would come to a grinding halt, an intolerable threat to the stability of the Chinese government.
China would rather not depend on an adversary like this. It’s one of the main reasons it created an alternative to the petrodollar system. The INE allows oil producers to sell their products for yuan (and gold indirectly) while bypassing the US dollar, sanctions, and financial system.
Other countries on Washington’s sanctions list are enthusiastically signing up.
According to Credit Suisse, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela own 40% of the proven oil reserves of OPEC+ members. These countries are under strict US sanctions, which makes accepting US dollars and transacting globally challenging. So it’s no surprise that these sanctioned oil producers are happy to accept yuan as payment and support the petroyuan system.
But it’s not just sanctioned oil producers that benefit from the petroyuan…
Think about it. Any oil-producing country has two choices:
Option #1 – The Petrodollar
The dismal financial situation of the US guarantees the dollar will lose significant purchasing power.
Plus, there’s enormous political risk. Oil producers are exposed to the whims of the US government, which can confiscate their money whenever it wants, as it recently did to Russia.
Option #2 – Shanghai International Energy Exchange
Here, an oil producer can participate in the world’s largest market and try to capture more market share.
It can also easily convert and repatriate its proceeds into physical gold, an international form of money with no political or counterparty risk.
From the perspective of an oil producer, the choice is a no-brainer.
Even though most people have not realized it yet, we are at the end of the petrodollar system and on the cusp of a new monetary era.
There’s an excellent chance more financial turmoil is coming soon.
There can be little doubt that we are at war, except it’s not quite like in the movies. This war is unlike any others about which we learned in school where two opposed forces meet in a battlefield and fight it out until one side prevails. That kind of war is happening in Ukraine, but that’s only a part of the conflict that’s engulfed nearly all the rest of the world. It manifests in different and seemingly unrelated ways, but it is part of the same conflict.
Some analysts like to use the phrase “hybrid” or “asymmetrical” to describe it, by which they mean that in addition to shooting, the conflict has information, cultural, economic and financial dimensions. But I think that the war is still bigger than that: it is global and total – perhaps it should be called total global war. The “Trans Day of Vengeance” planned in Washington DC, is only the latest and weirdest part of it.
The clash of two systems
In his address to the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos in May 2022 George Soros explained that we are witnessing a clash between two models of governance. This was only slightly misleading: models don’t wage war on one another; it is the stakeholders in these models that are fighting. Soros characterized the two opposing sides as “open societies,” vs. “closed societies,” where open societies are liberal democracies that respect human rights, and closed societies are autocracies.
But Soros’s “open” societies are in fact oligarchies concealed behind faux democratic facades. To believe Soros, we’d have to accept that the trillionaire oligarchs in charge of open societies are die-hard defenders of democracy and human rights, willing to shed blood and treasure in their defense.
This war is as old as fractional reserve banking
But the notion that the conflict is between “two governance models” is not new: it is as old as the oldest forms of fractional reserve banking. Abraham Lincoln‘s chief economic advisor Henry C. Carey characterized it a bit better than George Soros. In his 1851 work, “The Harmony of Interests.” Carey wrote as follows:
“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits.
One looks to increasing the quantity of raw materials to be exported, and diminishing the inducements to imports of men, thus impoverishing both farmer and planter by throwing on them the burden of freight; while the other looks to increasing the import of men and diminishing the export of raw materials, thereby enriching both planter and farmer by relieving them from payment of freight.
One looks to giving the (products) of millions of acres of land and of the labour of millions of men for the (services) of hundreds of thousands of distant men; the other to bringing the distant men to consume on the land the products of the land, exchanging day’s labour for day’s labour.
One looks to compelling the farmers and planters of the Union to continue their contributions for the support of the fleets and the armies, the paupers, the nobles and the sovereigns of Europe; the other to enabling ourselves to apply the same means to the moral and intellectual improvement of the sovereigns of America.
One looks to the continuance of that freedom of trade which denies the principle of protection, yet doles it out as revenue duties; the other by extending the area of legitimate free trade by the establishment of perfect protection, followed by the annexation of individuals and communities, and ultimately by the abolition of customs-houses.
One looks to exporting men to occupy desert tracts, the sovereignty of which is obtained by aid of diplomacy or war; the other to increasing the value of an immense extent of vacant land by importing men by millions for their occupation.
One looks to the centralization of wealth and power in a great commercial city that shall rival the great cities of modern times which have been and are being supported by aid of contributions which have exhausted every nation subjected to them; the other to concentration, by aid of which a market shall be made upon the land for the products of the land, and the farmer and planter be enriched.
One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it.
One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level.
One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace.
One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”
Now, if you are like me, and perhaps you studied economics and history, you know about Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, but you probably never heard of Henry C. Carey. I am grateful to Cynthia Chung and Matthew Ehret for bringing Carey’s work to my attention through their invaluable research. If ever you read Carey’s biography, you might wonder why one of the most important economists of his age dropped out of the curriculum.
Well, the total global war is the reason. Namely, the proponents of the “open society” governance model would prefer it if you didn’t know about Henry Carey or about the American system which had turned the United States from a number of British Empire’s disjointed colonies into the world’s most prosperous and most powerful nation. In Lincoln’s days, the United States was known as a nation of readers, many of whom understood clearly what they were up against.
The rise of the United States in fact became such a threat to the British Empire that it orchestrated a civil war in order to break the Union into two smaller, weaker client states that could be set one against one another and kept weak and easily dominated. Empires do not suffer rivals and prefer that the earth be covered by uneducated and disorganized masses whose sole worth would be as a source of cheap, or preferably free labor used to extract their countries’ resource wealth and transfer it to “the nobles and sovereigns of Europe.” These would be the very stakeholders of George Soros’ open societies, who congregate in Davos and fantasize about turning the whole of humanity into a flock of “hackable animals” with no free will.
Even if the shooting war is raging in Ukraine, the United States remains the central battlefield in this total war. The people of the US are under a seemingly unrelated barrage of attacks that have escalated for several decades now and are almost too many to enumerate, but their effects include a sustained decline in living standards, progressive collapse of the nation’s infrastructure, loss of freedoms and permanent warfare. And yes, Americans are dying, only not exactly in trenches:
They already lost!
But the occult oligarchy behind the open societies has already lost their global war. They predicated their plans on achieving total domination of the whole world. The emergence of a multi-polar order entirely collapses their plans. How can you force everyone to rely on windmills and solar panels if your rivals are happily burning oil and gas and running their steel-producing furnaces? Without steel, you can’t build modern weapons. How can you coerce the “hackable animals” to subsist on insects if people in closed societies enjoy traditional foods? How do you force 7 or 8 billion people to take up your vaccines and carry vaccine passes if other nations opt for your rivals’ vaccines? That ship had sailed – it simply cannot be done.
Raising a new Iron Curtain
The only consolation prize available to the occult oligarchy now is to carve out a geopolitical block, break all ties with the closed societies and implement their plans within a new iron curtain. Then perhaps, the open societies could regroup and rebuild their military strength (not with solar panels) for another attempt at world domination in the future.
This new iron curtain would most likely encompass the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and parts of continental Europe. But the block’s viability will depend on whether it can also include the United States which remains an extremely tough nut to crack. The uncontrolled migrations, attack on states’ rights, and the all-out assault of the Bill of Rights, including the periodic mass shootings, are all occult oligarchy’s attempts to crack it. It is all part of the total global war.
Like Henry Carey, those who understood the nature of this conflict knew that the ultimate showdown was coming. In addressing the American people, Ernesto Che Guevara invoked the coming clash: “I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all – you live in the belly of the beast.” Che got many things wrong, but I believe he did get that part right.
If you have ever heard talk or been to a seminar about “sovereignty”, then very likely those conversations were influenced by the foundational research of the author and educator.
His research and educational journey reaching millions of people worldwide began in 1992 and culminated in 2022 with the 3-Volume book release – his final word on the subject.
At the turn of the millennium his books and audio courses facilitated in part – a sovereignty and tax-honesty movement that involved millions of Americans.
This 3 Volume series comprises the life’s work of Johnny Liberty filled with comprehensive insights into the last few hundred years of history, law, economics, money, citizenship and governance.
These books show how it is supposed to be done in a constitutional Republic.
How did We the People get to where we are today?
What can we do to reclaim our inherent sovereignty and natural rights?
Many of the answers may be found within these revolutionary pages. Available as a paperback, E-Book (PDF) or an Amazon Kindle format. Thank you for supporting the author.
Sincerely,
With Freedom For All, ~ Johnny Liberty
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition)
A three-volume, 750 page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook.
Still after all these years, it is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written.
Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course.
The 3 Volume Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty is textbook material for everyone including educators/teachers, homeschoolers, historians, activists, leaders/politicians, attorneys/judges/law schools, police officers, and state Citizens/Nationals.
Sovereign’s Handbook by Johnny Liberty (30th Anniversary Edition) (3-Volume Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
A three-volume, 750+ page tome with an extensive update of the renowned underground classic ~ the Global Sovereign’s Handbook. Still after all these years, this is the most comprehensive book on sovereignty, economics, law, power structures and history ever written. Served as the primary research behind the best-selling Global One Audio Course. Available Now!
Dawning of the Corona Age: Navigating the Pandemic by Johnny Freedom (3rd Edition) (Printed, Bound Book or PDF)
This comprehensive book, goes far beyond the immediate impact of the “pandemic”, but, along with the reader, imagines how our human world may be altered, both positively and negatively, long into an uncertain future. Available Now!
Uninformed Consent is an in depth look into the Covid 19 narrative, who’s controlling it and how it’s being used to inject an untested, new technology, into almost every person on the planet. This film explores our recent loss of human rights while weaving in the devastating impact of mandates and the deeply powerful story of one man’s loss. Hear the truth from doctors and scientists unafraid to stand up against Big Pharma and the Elite Class who profit from these mandates.
Zelenskyy recently described Putin’s “de-Nazification” of Ukraine as “laughable” and the brainwashed flock of the mainstream media certainly must agree.
They have been told that Nazis wave the American flag and vote Republican and the brainwashed flock always believe what they are told.
But those of us still cleaving to our sanity remember that Nazis were members of Hitler’s National Socialist Party from the 1930s and ’40s.
And not only were there thousands of Nazis in Western Ukraine back then, it is still a big part of their national pride.
Nazi war criminal, Stepan Bandera is a national hero and there are actual Nazi organizations still thriving in Ukraine, including the Azov Regiment, which is now a part of Ukraine’s armed forces.
The Nazification of Ukraine is well-documented and easily-verified, as is the Nazification of America.
During the 1930s, there were many notable Americans who supported the Nazis, such as Prescott Bush, Henry Ford and Fred Koch; banks, such as JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan; companies such as General Motors, Standard Oil, Shell and IBM.
Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marines was asked by these powerful entities to install National Socialism in the United States and when that plan failed, war broke out with the support of the banks and these American entities.
After World War II, only about a dozen were brought to justice at the Nuremberg Trials.
The Catholic Church and the Vatican helped thousands of Nazis evade capture, via the rat lines, which brought them mostly to South America, where they built an entire town in Argentina.
In Operation Paperclip, the United States secretly absorbed thousands of Nazis into the US Government, where they led the NASA Space Program and helped pioneer the military-industrial complex, as well as Big Pharma.
Many believe being a Nazi is synonymous with being anti-Jewish, which may have been true in 1930s Germany but it’s complicated. Many high-ranking Nazis, themselves, including Adolf Hitler were Ashkenazi Jews, who cold be traced back to the notorious Khazars, who mysteriously mass-converted to Judaism about 1,300 years ago in the region now known as Ukraine.
Ashkenazi Jews ran the political Zionist Party in Germany and for several years, the Zionists were the only political party allowed to operate inside Germany by the Nazis.
Both the Zionists and the Nazis wanted their own ethnically-pure state and for years, before their Final Solution, the Nazis helped the Zionists in their efforts to establish the State of Israel within Palestine. It was far more complicated than mere racial hatred.
Nazism can best be described as Fascism and Fascism is godlessness. The word “Nazi” is a made-up slur but the word “Fascist” is clearly-defined. It stems from the Latin word, “Fascis”, which is a bundle of sticks banded together to form a deadly weapon; an old school meme that represents the deadly power of an organized mob, a gang.
When men lack a personal relationship with God, they inevitably band together, out of fear, submitting to the small man for a taste of dominance, they become just another beast in the jungle.
And today, we can clearly see this Fascist mentality in all of these godless groups: the woke, the Satanists, the transhumanists and the genocidal mass-murderers of the Great Reset are all merging together into one giant fascis; godless men and women banded together out of fear; Fascists serving the straw man.
Spiritually-speaking, these are the weakest among us and so far, we’re allowing them to destroy everything.
The current Russian invasion of Ukraine could have been avoided, and it demonstrates a failure that the U.S. leadership couldn’t effectively communicate with its Russian counterpart, according to Gen. Michael Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who briefly served as the National Security Advisor to former President Donald Trump.
“Russia, Ukraine, Europe … what’s happening? At the 60,000-foot level, this is a totally avoidable war. Totally avoidable,” Flynn recently told NTD’s “Capitol Report” program.
“It really goes back to 1994, what was called the Budapest Accords, in Budapest, Hungary, at the end of the Cold War,” said Flynn.
On Dec. 5, 1994, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed an agreement with Ukraine called The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in Budapest, Hungary. The three nuclear powers gave their assurances on independence and sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for removing all nuclear weapons from its territory and becoming a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Two other nuclear powers, China and France, gave their assurances in separate documents.
These nuclear powers also signed identical security assurances with Belarus and Kazakhstan at the time.
U.S. President Bill Clinton (L), Russian President Boris Yeltsin (C), and Ukrainian counterpart Leonid M. Kravchuk (R) join hands after signing the nuclear disarmament agreement in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on Jan. 14, 1994. Under the agreement, Ukraine, the world’s third-largest nuclear power, said it would turn all of its strategic nuclear arms over to Russia for destruction. (Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images)
“One of the big-ticket items that came out of the Budapest accords was no further encroachment of NATO against this new Russian Federation,” Flynn said, explaining that no country leaders wanted to have nuclear missiles across the boundary between Russia and European countries.
The Budapest Memo (pdf) didn’t mention the NATO expansion. However, Western leaders had promised no NATO eastward expansion throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991. The most famous one is then-Secretary of State James Baker’s “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990.
According to recently declassified documents by the National Security Archive at George Washington University published on Nov. 24, 2021, before and after the Budapest meeting in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton kept assuring then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin that any NATO enlargement would be slow, with no surprises, building a Europe that was inclusive not exclusive, and in “partnership” with Russia.
In a Sep. 28, 1994 conversation, Clinton told Yeltsin that he had never said that Russia could not be considered for NATO membership, and that “when we talk about NATO expanding, we are emphasizing inclusion, not exclusion,” and “there is no imminent timetable.”
In a Nov. 30, 1994, letter to Clinton, Yeltsin said, “We have agreed with you that there will be no surprises, that first we should pass through this phase of partnership, whereas issues of further evolution of NATO should not be decided without due account to the opinion and interests of Russia.”
U.S. President Bill Clinton (R) and Russian President Boris Yeltsin greet each other in the Green room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on Jan. 13, 1994. (Luke Frazza/AFP via Getty Images)
The war also shows the Biden administration’s failure to communicate with Russia in an effective way to prevent the escalation of the Ukraine situation, said Flynn.
“War is a failure of policy and diplomacy,” said Flynn. “Anytime you see states, nations, nation-states, at war with each other, it’s because there’s a failure to communicate some way somehow. And that’s what happened.”
Flynn said Russian President Vladimir Putin kept saying Ukraine shouldn’t join NATO and it should declare neutrality, but “we won’t come into play here, and they never did.”
Current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had pushed for joining NATO after taking office. Joining NATO and the European Union has been put into the constitution of Ukraine during his tenure.
Last month, Zelenskyy said his country has to accept that it will not become a member of NATOIn a Mar. 26 speech in Poland, Biden said of Putin, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
“Immediately after he said it, they had to start walking it back. They had to start walking it back,” said Flynn. “Because it’s so wrong to say that.”
The White House and the State Department clarified that Biden didn’t talk about regime change.
Biden defended himself two days later.
“I want to make it clear: I wasn’t then, nor am I now, articulating a policy change. I was expressing the moral outrage that I feel, and I make no apologies for it,” Biden said.
It was as a ten-year-old that Noam Chomsky first confronted the perils of foreign aggression. “The first article that I wrote for the elementary school newspaper was on the fall of Barcelona [in 1939],” Chomsky recalled when we spoke recently via video call. It charted the advance of the “grim cloud of fascism” across the world. “I haven’t changed my opinion since, it’s just gotten worse,” he sardonically remarked. Due to the climate crisis and the threat of nuclear war, Chomsky told me, “we’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history… We are now facing the prospect of destruction of organised human life on Earth.”
At the age of 93, as perhaps the world’s most cited living scholar, Chomsky could be forgiven for retreating from the public sphere. But in an era of permanent crisis, he retains the moral fervour of a young radical – more preoccupied with the world’s mortality than his own. He is a walking advertisement for Dylan Thomas’s injunction – “Do not go gentle into that good night” – or for what Chomsky calls “the bicycle theory: if you keep going fast, you don’t fall off”.
The occasion for our conversation is the publication of Chronicles of Dissent, a collection of interviews between Chomsky and the radical journalist David Barsamian from 1984 to 1996. But the backdrop is the war in Ukraine – a subject about which Chomsky is unsurprisingly voluble.
“It’s monstrous for Ukraine,” he said. In common with many Jews, Chomsky has a family connection to the region: his father was born in present-day Ukraine and emigrated to the US in 1913 to avoid serving in the tsarist army; his mother was born in Belarus. Chomsky, who is often accused by critics of refusing to condemn any anti-Western government, unhesitatingly denounced Vladimir Putin’s “criminal aggression”.
But he added: “Why did he do it?” There are two ways of looking at this question. One way, the fashionable way in the West, is to plumb the recesses of Putin’s twisted mind and try to determine what’s happening in his deep psyche.
“The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato. You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right. What we do know is that Ukraine will be further devastated. And we may move on to terminal nuclear war if we do not pursue the opportunities that exist for a negotiated settlement.”
How does he respond to the argument that Putin’s greatest fear is not encirclement by NATO but the spread of liberal democracy in Ukraine and Russia’s “near abroad”?
“Putin is as concerned with democracy as we are. If it’s possible to break out of the propaganda bubble for a few minutes, the US has a long record of undermining and destroying democracy. Do I have to run through it? Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, on and on… But we are supposed to now honour and admire Washington’s enormous commitment to sovereignty and democracy. What happened in history doesn’t matter. That’s for other people.”
“What about NATO expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin NATO, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.”
Chomsky, who observed in 1990 that “if the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every postwar American president would have been hanged”, spoke witheringly of Joe Biden.
“It’s certainly right to have moral outrage about Putin’s actions in Ukraine,” he said of Biden’s recent declaration that the Russian president “cannot remain in power”.“But it would be even more progress to have moral outrage about other horrible atrocities… In Afghanistan, literally millions of people are facing imminent starvation. Why? There’s food in the markets. But people who have little money have to watch their children starve because they can’t go to the market to buy food. Why? Because the United States, with the backing of Britain, has kept Afghanistan’s funds in New York banks and will not release them.”
Chomsky’s contempt for the hypocrisies and contradictions of US foreign policy will be familiar to anyone who has read one of his many books and pamphlets (his first political work, American Power and the New Mandarins, published in 1969, foretold the US’s defeat in Vietnam). But he is now perhaps most animated when discussing Donald Trump’s possible return and the climate crisis.
“I’m old enough to remember the early 1930s. And memories come to mind,” he said in a haunting recollection. “I can remember listening to Hitler’s speeches on the radio. I didn’t understand the words, I was six years old. But I understood the mood. And it was frightening and terrifying. And when you watch one of Trump’s rallies that can’t fail to come to mind. That’s what we’re facing.”
Though he self-identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian socialist, Chomsky revealed to me that he had voted for Republicans in the past (“like them or not, they were an authentic party”). But now he said, they were a truly dangerous insurgency.
“Because of Trump’s fanaticism, the worshipful base of the Republican Party barely regards climate change as a serious problem. That’s a death warrant to the species.”
Faced with such existential threats, it is perhaps unsurprising that Chomsky remains a dissident intellectual – in the manner of one of his heroes, Bertrand Russell (who lived to 97 and similarly straddled politics and philosophy). But he also still spends hours a day answering emails from admirers and critics, and teaches linguistics at the University of Arizona, the state where he lives with his second wife, Valeria Wasserman, a Brazilian translator.
Chomsky is also still engaged by British politics. “Brexit was a very serious error, it means that Britain will be compelled to drift even further into subordination to the US,” he told me. “I think it’s a disaster. What does it mean for the Conservative Party? I imagine they can lie their way out of it, they’re doing a good job of lying about a lot of things and getting away with it.”
Of Keir Starmer, he scornfully remarked: “He’s returning the Labour Party to a party that’s reliably obedient to power, that will be Thatcher-lite in the style of Tony Blair and that won’t ruffle the feathers of either the US or anyone who’s important in Britain.”
The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci advised radicals to maintain “pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will”. What, I asked Chomsky at the close of our conversation, gives him hope?
“A lot of young people; Extinction Rebellion in England, young people dedicated to trying to put an end to the catastrophe. Civil disobedience – it’s not a joke, I’ve been involved with it for much of my life. I’m too old for it now [Chomsky was first arrested in 1967 for protesting against the Vietnam War and shared a cell with Norman Mailer]… It’s not pleasant to be thrown in jail and beaten, but they’re willing to undertake it.”
“There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.”
Liberty International News 