‘Clash of Civilizations’ or Class Warfare ?
In 1993 Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington wrote an essay titled “The Clash of Civilizations?” and later he expanded into a book with the same title, but without the question mark. Edward Said, late Columbia professor rips Huntington’s thesis to shreds.
Internationalists are Pushing The World Towards Globally Engineered Economic Warfare
The current central banking structure gives the illusion of separation and sovereignty. Most people who have not researched the nature of the international banking cartel believe that the Federal Reserve, for instance, is a separate national entity from the Central Bank of Russia, or the Central Bank of China. They believe that these institutions act of their own accord rather than in concert with each other. The reality is, there is no Federal Reserve. There is no Central Bank of Russia. There are no separate entities. There are no Western banks and there are no BRICS. All of these banking edifices are merely front organizations for global financiers, as Council on Foreign Relations insider (and friend to the Rockefellers) Carroll Quigley made clear in his book, Tragedy And Hope:
It must not be felt that the heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up, and who were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.
A “global economic reset”, I suspect, will consist of a grand shift away from covert cooperation between central banks to an OPENLY centralized one world banking system, predicated on the concepts put forward by the IMF and led by the Bank for International Settlements, which has always been behind the sceneshanding down commandments to the seemingly separate central banks of nations.
In order for this “reset” to be achieved, however, the establishment needs a historically monumental distraction. A distraction so confounding and terrifying that by the time the public has a chance to examine the situation rationally, the elites have already tightened the noose.
Economists, Military Strategists and Others Warned Us … Long Ago
We’ve known for 5,000 years that mass spying on one’s own people is always aimed at grabbing power and crushing dissent, not protecting us from bad guys.
We’ve known for 4,000 years that debts need to be periodically written down, or the entire economy will collapse. And see this.
We’ve known for 2,500 years that prolonged war bankrupts an economy.
We’ve known for 2,000 years that wars are based on lies.
We’ve known for 1,900 years that runaway inequality destroys societies.
We’ve known for thousands of years that debasing currencies leads to economic collapse.
We’ve known for millennia that torture is a form of terrorism.
We’ve known for thousands of years that – when criminals are not punished – crime spreads.
We’ve known for hundreds of years that the failure to punish financial fraud destroys economies, as it destroys all trust in the financial system.
We’ve known for centuries that monopolies and the political influence which accompanies too much power in too few hands are dangerous for free markets.
We’ve known for hundreds of years that companies will try to pawn their debts off on governments, and that it is a huge mistake for governments to allow corporate debt to be backstopped by government.
We’ve known for centuries that powerful people – unless held to account – will get together and steal from everyone else.
We’ve known for hundreds of years that standing armies and warmongering harm Western civilization.
We’ve known for over 300 years that going into debt to pay for war ruins any nation.
We’ve known for 200 years that allowing private banks to control credit creation eventually destroys the nation’s prosperity.
We’ve known for two centuries that a fiat money system – where the money supply is not pegged to anything real – is harmful in the long-run.
We’ve known for 200 years that a two-party system quickly becomes corrupted.
We’ve known for over a century that torture produces false and useless information.
We’ve known since the 1930s Great Depression that separating depository banking from speculative investment banking is key to economic stability. See this, this, this and this.
We’ve known for 80 years that inflation is a hidden tax.
We’ve known for 79 years that war is a racket that benefits the elites but harms everyone else.
We’ve known since 1988 that quantitative easing doesn’t work to rescue an ailing economy.
We’ve known since 1993 that derivatives such as credit default swaps – if not reined in – could take down the economy. And see this.
We’ve known since 1998 that crony capitalism destroys even the strongest economies, and that economies that are capitalist in name only need major reforms to create accountability and competitive markets.
We’ve known since 2007 or earlier that lax oversight of hedge funds could blow up the economy.
And we knew before the 2008 financial crash and subsequent bailouts that:
- The easy credit policy of the Fed and other central banks, the failure to regulate the shadow banking system, and “the use of gimmicks and palliatives” by central banks hurt the economy
- Anything other than (1) letting asset prices fall to their true market value, (2) increasing savings rates, and (3) forcing companies to write off bad debts “will only make things worse”
- Bailouts of big banks harm the economy
- The Fed and other central banks were simply transferring risk from private banks to governments, which could lead to a sovereign debt crisis
Postscript: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it … and we’ve known that for a long time. Source:
Reporting from somewhere in Europe…I am reading histories of Venice right now. There is a hugely funded push in the West to make the case that Islam and the West are fundamentally forever, and in their DNA, incompatible. That view supports the vast profits of War Inc.
BUT ……Venice is testimony to how wrong and ahistorical this message is (as are Toledo…Seville…Granada in Spain…).
Venice was for hundreds of years as an independent Republic, oriented to the East — to the Ottoman rulers and what is now Turkey — the source of its vast medieval and Renaissance wealth. It chose for centuries to turn its face East rather than West, that is not to the then-barbaric lands of Europe, for its own benefit as the merchant, sea-oriented power it was.
In its architecture you see the Islamic influence…on the fretting like lace of the Doges’ Palace….in the shapes of the windows that mirror Islamic architecture, that keyhole shape known to us in illustrations of the Thousand and One Nights and debased echoes of Islamic architecture as in Disney’s Alladin…Venice had its painters paint sultans….and engrave the portraits of turbaned Arabs and Moors into its public statues and heraldic emblems…Venice reached its great wealth, influence and power (as did pre-Ferdinand and Isabella Spain) by being cosmopolitan, pluralistic, multiethnic, diverse..welcoming trade and cultural exchange with the Muslim East, with Jews and Saracens and Moors….and being vivified by the importation of the high levels of civilization (mathematics, poetry, medicine) that the Muslim world attained while Europe was still in the dark ages..having lost classical learning.
It is just wrong, the current right-wing messaging that these civilizations are incompatible and it is so poorly informed historically. Together, East and West, they are more than the sum of their parts individually. Without Islam and Arabic culture there would have been no European Renaissance discoveries in science, math or medicine…not to mention the influence everywhere visible in Venice of the decorative arts – -this is well established among scholars of the Renaissance. Time to look at history again to shred current hate-based mythologies….that foster a narrative of eternal strangeness and mutual incomprehension.
168 Clash of Civilizations Part 168
Brzezinski Formulates Double Down Foreign Policy Approach toward Russia, over lunch
Brzezinski sees no other interest save his own. It’s a psychosis of sorts, he has fully bought into the flawed theory of the Clash of Civilizations. He begins with what seem to be a threat that the Russians are not suicidal. We hope he was speaking directly to Putin here, as anything else leaves that eerie ring of nuclear in the ear. Here in 2014, he falters, from lack of empathy. His disregard for the interest of other sovereign nations reflects his insanity. He belligerently advises what he calls the international community(NATO, the West} to basically engage Russia by way of Poland and all other neighboring nations. He calls for the supplying of arms to the region. Oddly the Dr; mirrors his own aspirations, when channeling Russian intentions. Never giving realize to a recent China Russian 400 billion dollar marriage, a new Silk road and a contrary too, parallel economic system being wrought into fruition via the BRICS nations and China.
This is the insanity of the Clash of Civilizations being manufactured, by megalomaniac ideological Zionist Nazi Neocon psychopaths, that seek to continue incorporating the globe for a few, opposed to the many, right before our eyes. For the West and NATO, including the two sister states, to continue on their present course, doubling down even, portraying itself as a De-fact o international community, is fraudulent and a definitive march toward war. This pronouncement being a call to arms seemingly. Enjoy, and be mindful he is not speaking to you, or the public for that matter. He speaks to a group representing the corporate nations, which share his ideology and understanding, that if they can not rule the globe, no one will. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Talmudist, fit right in there with the rest of the multinational corporate entities. Well that’s my humble take !!
Published on Nov 18, 2014
Formulating a New Foreign Policy Approach toward Russia, Lunch Keynote
Center for Strategic & International Studies
Please join us for an important discussion that will assess the new dynamics in Europe’s security landscape and evaluate the challenges of the past year in light of the upcoming one-year anniversary of the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine. Twenty-three years of policy efforts to integrate Russia into Western structures after the collapse of the Soviet Union have come to an end. The principal challenge to the transatlantic community is to formulate a new and long-term foreign policy approach by directly engaging, for the first time, Poland as well as the Baltic and Central European countries. This conference will address these new challenges, examine the potential impact on the region, particularly within Russia’s neighborhood, and discuss how the United States and Europe can reformulate their foreign policies in order to better understand Russia’s motivations today, predict its future behavior, and ensure the security and stability of Europe. Our expert panelists will address these issues and offer their perspectives on what transatlantic dialogue with Russia will look like in the future, as well as examine the implications of Russia’s actions on the future of the international system.
Luncheon Keynote: Russia and the International System
Zbigniew Brzezinski Still Admits The Global Political Awakening Proving Very Difficult For The Elite
Published on Oct 8, 2012
Here is Zbigniew Brzezinski once again admitting that the globalists are in fear of the global awakening that is currently happening across the world. People are waking up to the fact that the governments are all power hungry and corrupt and are not there to serve the interests of the people, but that of the global elite and the multi-billion dollar corporations. This lecture was given about a week ago in his home country of Poland.
Here are a few quotes from this globalist:
“We have a large public that is very ignorant about public affairs and very susceptible to simplistic slogans by candidates who appear out of nowhere, have no track record, but mouth appealing slogans”
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
― Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
― Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era
Clashes of Civilizations are about Theft
Jerusalem Killings Follow Months of Tensions, Settlement Growth
Published on Nov 19, 2014
In the aftermath of Tuesday’s attack that killed five Israeli civilians in a Jerusalem synagogue, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of inciting violence in the city and said the killings were part of a “battle over Jerusalem.” Abbas has condemned the attack, which came after weeks of unrest fueled by a dispute over Jerusalem’s holiest site, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and known to Jews as the Temple Mount, as well as the continued expansion of Israeli settlements.
Jerusalem Killings Follow Months of Tensions, Settlement Growth:#BDS
The Truth about The Social Contract
The social contract is a concept that liberals and conservatives
interpret as very different things. Those who consider themselves liberals tend to use
the term in a positive sense,
to encompass ideals of social responsibility and social justice,
both of which are loaded terms in their own right. Conservative tend to interpret
the social contract as an extension of collectivism, therefore viewed as an
invalid training construct.
Most of the time this debate doesn’t go far beyond these two multiple choice options,
that’s unfortunate because this is a false dichotomy, there are more than two ways
of looking at this.
Like it or not, the way we can see the social contract or the lack thereof
has a massive influence on the way society is organized. So it’s in our best
interest to reexamine our assumptions on the topic.So, what is a social contract, short answer is that the social contract is a set of
expectations established by a group and forced on it’s members.
The term was first popularized by the French philosopher jean-jacques Rousseau,
during the Enlightenment period Rizzo’s concept of the social contract was
unapologetically collectivism by force. People claim that individuals should
merge their rights and there will, to society at large, for the greater good and that those who do not bend to
the will of the majority, should be forced to submit.
Rarely are modern proponents of the social contract as honest as this,
but in practice nothing’s really has changed. In modern times a majority,
or more accurately, the elected officials a majority, wish to establish public
programs and need to fund those programs, it is generally understood
that this will be made possible through taxation.
Of course people who buy into this line of thinking promote the idea that people
should happily pay taxes, after all it is our duty, there’s that social contract that we’re all a
part of but the unspoken reality here is, that those who aren’t enthusiastic
volunteers, will be forced to pay. If you refuse to you’ll have your property confiscated
and/or be drawn into a cage for a decade or two, no big deal right.
Now the current way that most people frame this debate is a false dichotomy,
because though, the political right does not acknowledge it, the fact of the matter is that
they have their own versions of the social contract and philosophically it’s identical at its core.
The majority in the political right, supports forced taxation, they just have a different concept
of where the stolen money should be spent. They also support collectivism by force in the
form of the legislative executive and judicial systems, so they don’t generally see it as such.
The problem here is that people are not being honest about the implications
of their politics. The social contract as it is right now is a set of rules imposed by force
upon people were given no choice to opt out.
Those rules change constantly, because new laws are being written all the time.
It is assumed that if you’re born within a specific country, the government ruling
that geographical region has the right to impose requirements restrictions on
We’re talking about force taxation, compulsory schooling, registering for
military draft, mandatory vaccinations,
the underlining issues are still the same, the method serves to refer to the Constitution as
the point of reference for the assumption that this changes the dynamic,
it really doesn’t, the constitution is often referred to as a document designed to
What most people overlook, is the fact that the constitution, was first and foremost
used to create government with the understanding that this government would
have power over the citizens.
But did the people who wrote the Constitution
have the right to give the government that power? In order for the contract to be
valid, those who it claims to bind, must agree to it in full awareness of the terms.
In other words, there must be informed consent, any contract that fails to meet these
conditions is invalid and therefore has no real or legitimate powers, even if that contract is
well written, and noble in it’s intentions.
group of men two hundred years ago, sitting down and writing doc,
can not hand power to the government today, cease your property by force or put you in
jail for smoking a joint,
regulate how you build your house, obviously these kinds of laws were not
the original intention of the founders,
the federal government itself owes it’s existence to the Constitution.
In fact this was the explicit reason why the Constitution was created
your replace the Articles of Confederation, which was much more decentralized in
So even though the federal government is clearly abusing its power, it’s claims of
legitimacy of rooted in the Constitution.
So it is extremely important to question whether that claim is valid.
Some use vague notions of democracy to try to get around this issue, but this really
doesn’t hold up.
If eleven people are in a room and 10 people vote to take the eleventh persons wallet and
distribute it’s contents is this valid ? If not then why would be valid on a larger
Even if 100 percent of the population view the electoral process as legitimate
participating, which is clearly not the case, still wouldn’t change the
underlying morality theft is theft, regardless of how popular it is.
Now on the other side to this, all societies gravitate towards rules.
Humans tend to want structure, they want violent crime to be dealt with consistently
and justly, they want certain activities like child slavery
and child pornography to be prohibited.
Most people don’t want their neighbor to be dumping poisons into the ground seeping
into the water.
This tendency to want to establish societal norms will manifest
whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you see deep
philosophical problems with it or not.
Be honest there are philosophical Problems here but in practical terms we have
to deal with people as they are,
and not as we wish they would be, there for the question is really how this tendency
will manifest in how we deal with it.
In the current paradigm, both the political left and the political
right endorse collectivism by force without informed consent.
So what would be the alternative how can we address this tendency towards societal
rules with out degrading back into what we have now?
Say a group of people establish a club, and with it
a set rules and they open up membership to the public if the rules are clear and
membership is voluntary,
then this would be a valid arrangement, as long as the members can choose to walk away at any
If we were to talk about this on a societal level membership would be
Of course this implies a citizenship and the duties and/or protections that may
come with it
cannot be imposed upon a child and then assumed to be valid to that person’s adulthood.
Citizenship must be conscious choice made in full awareness of the terms.
Parents can not make that decision for their children, at least not for their whole lives,
nor would it be a legitimate from this perspective, to have a gavel of so-called
lawmakers writing new laws willy nilly, writing new laws changes the terms of the
Changing the terms of the contract inherently invalidate that contract,
unless people voluntarily sign on to the new terms. Now this is a
radically different way of looking at human societies and it is not something
that could just be superimposed over current system.
In fact fully coming to terms with it’s implications will inherently break the
Because with it comes the realization, that the government is operating on a invalid
contact, and their so called authority is little more than a self-serving fantasy.
Once you see that, why would you obey them. In the early stages you may give in to fear
their enforces, but when the enforcers begin to wake up, it’s over.
This whole topic may seem to you to be like a
pointless philosophical exercise, but consider for a moment where we’re headed
as a society today.
All empires fall and the United States is on its deathbed
the entire planet is going to be destabilizing when this comes down,
many nations will crash’
How are we going to rebuild,
are we going to blindly recreate the current system from the same flawed paradigm
or worse, do it on a global scale, or will we learn from our mistakes.
if you care about the world we are passing on to our children, its worth thinking deeply
about this right now.