theduran--2020-02-18--Andrew Yang  — Right Message, Wrong Target (Part 1)

Although he has now withdrawn from the Presidential race , the charismatic Yang has been the first person to bring Unconditional Basic Income firmly under the spotlight of mainstream American politics .
Surprisingly , Hillary Clinton actually considered it in 2016 , but why give ordinary people money when you can sell your soul to the rich and powerful , lining your own pockets in the process ?
The concept of basic income goes back centuries but was really considered seriously and in-depth by the great Major Douglas back in the 1920s .
Douglas was an engineer , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a piece of machinery whose purpose was to deliver the goods and services the community demanded and which it could create .
Rather than basic income he called his system Social Credit , which is not to be confused with an entirely different type of Social Credit imposed on its citizens by China .
In spite of constant attempts to deride UBI , its rejection by the Swiss , and worst of all to equate it with communism/socialism , it is not going away , because realistically it is the only hope for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little thought experiment for the skeptical reader .
Imagine a society in which 95 % of the work is performed by machines , work in this case means mining , manufacturing , delivering goods , transport generally , maintenance , generating electricity , cleaning the house , everything .
Now ask yourself how is purchasing power to be distributed if jobs – from the working class to the middle class – have all gone ?
Perhaps before answering this question we should ask another , what are jobs for ?
Donald Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on about the dignity of labour , but throughout history , work has been the curse of the drinking classes .
Trump has given up his retirement or put it on hold for four years , and hopefully another four after that .
He has a hectic schedule and seems never to stop , often bellowing on Twitter at 4am .
This is his choice , but for those without a calling or a profession , or a trade , work is a drudge .
Indeed , most professional people would rather be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or doing any of a hundred things rather than working .
For most people , work exists for one purpose , and that purpose is livelihood .
Livelihood for a single man or his family ; livelihood for a single woman , or for a married woman to supplement her husband ’ s income .
Livelihood includes the provision of goods and services .
If we can get them for free , why work for them ?
At this point the economic argument for “ full employment ” usually switches to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why should people get stuff for free ?
The reality is there are countless make-work jobs in the public sector , and not a few in the private sector in the form of thinly disguised bribery – think Hunter Biden .
There are countless non-profits and charities on both sides of the Atlantic and the world over that produce little or nothing except salaries for the people who run them .
There are charities set up to combat such social evils as Satanic abuse .
Is there any credible evidence that these vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are think tanks all over the world that churn out reams and reams of reports in support of political agendas , many of them filled with lies , that ’ s if anyone even bothers to read them .
Such endeavours are the equivalent of digging holes and filling them in again , something that was once seriously proposed in order to distribute income .
Wars create a lot of employment , and while a few insiders grow rich off them , for most people they produce bitterness , hatred , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ever lost a war because it ran out of money .
Did you ever stop to wonder where that money comes from ?
Most people think it comes out of taxation , not so .
Andrew Yang believes UBI can be financed out of taxation , and has set his sights on Amazon in particular .
This is a company that has an income of billions , yet it pays surprisingly little tax .
Indeed , other big corporations often come under fire for paying “ too little ” tax , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
People have actually started petitions calling on Facebook and Google to pay more tax , but like Yang they are aiming at the wrong target .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Although he has now withdrawn from the Presidential race, the charismatic Yang has been the first person to bring Unconditional Basic Income firmly under the spotlight of mainstream American politics. Surprisingly, Hillary Clinton actually considered it in 2016, but why give ordinary people money when you can sell your soul to the rich and powerful, lining your own pockets in the process?
The concept of basic income goes back centuries but was really considered seriously and in-depth by the great Major Douglas back in the 1920s. Douglas was an engineer, and he considered the economy to be comparable to a piece of machinery whose purpose was to deliver the goods and services the community demanded and which it could create. Rather than basic income he called his system Social Credit, which is not to be confused with an entirely different type of Social Credit imposed on its citizens by China.
In spite of constant attempts to deride UBI, its rejection by the Swiss, and worst of all to equate it with communism/socialism, it is not going away, because realistically it is the only hope for liberating the underclass.
Here is a little thought experiment for the skeptical reader. Imagine a society in which 95% of the work is performed by machines, work in this case means mining, manufacturing, delivering goods, transport generally, maintenance, generating electricity, cleaning the house, everything. Now ask yourself how is purchasing power to be distributed if jobs – from the working class to the middle class – have all gone?
Perhaps before answering this question we should ask another, what are jobs for? Donald Trump is far from the first politician to waffle on about the dignity of labour, but throughout history, work has been the curse of the drinking classes. Trump has given up his retirement or put it on hold for four years, and hopefully another four after that. He has a hectic schedule and seems never to stop, often bellowing on Twitter at 4am. This is his choice, but for those without a calling or a profession, or a trade, work is a drudge. Indeed, most professional people would rather be spending time with their families, sight-seeing, or doing any of a hundred things rather than working.
For most people, work exists for one purpose, and that purpose is livelihood. Livelihood for a single man or his family; livelihood for a single woman, or for a married woman to supplement her husband’s income. Livelihood includes the provision of goods and services. If we can get them for free, why work for them? At this point the economic argument for “full employment” usually switches to a moral or more accurately pseudo-moral argument. Why should people get stuff for free? The reality is there are countless make-work jobs in the public sector, and not a few in the private sector in the form of thinly disguised bribery – think Hunter Biden.
There are countless non-profits and charities on both sides of the Atlantic and the world over that produce little or nothing except salaries for the people who run them. There are charities set up to combat such perceived social evils as Satanic abuse. Is there any credible evidence that these vast networks of Satanists exist? More prosaically, there are think tanks all over the world that churn out reams and reams of reports in support of political agendas, many of them filled with lies, that’s if anyone even bothers to read them. Such endeavours are the equivalent of digging holes and filling them in again, something that was once seriously proposed in order to distribute income.
Wars create a lot of employment, and while a few insiders grow rich off them, for most people they produce bitterness, hatred, death and destruction, yet curiously no government ever lost a war because it ran out of money. Did you ever stop to wonder where that money comes from?
Most people think it comes out of taxation, not so. Andrew Yang believes UBI can be financed out of taxation, and has set his sights on Amazon in particular. This is a company that has an income of billions, yet it pays surprisingly little tax. Indeed, other big corporations often come under fire for paying “too little” tax, or none at all in a particular jurisdiction. People have actually started petitions calling on Facebook and Google to pay more tax, but like Yang they are aiming at the wrong target.
Click here for Part 2.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-18--Revising the history of WWII

Revising the history of WWII

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Lucas Leiroz , research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro… Poland is encouraging the growth of historical revisionism of the World War II .
Apparently , there is nothing necessarily wrong in revisiting the data referring to any past armed conflict , however , it is not the desire for the discovery of the truth that has motivated these pseudoscientific “ researches ” , but the desire to spread lies with political intentions .
This is what we can conclude when , officially , a government decides to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the history and feelings of an entire people , as the Polish government has been doing .
Last year , a controversy involving the subject gained prominence in the media around the world , when the American ambassador to Poland , Georgette Mosbacher , published a provocative text on a social network , in which it implied that there was a collaboration between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for the invasion and division of Poland in 1939 , at the beginning of the World War II .
The post generated outrage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But things go far beyond a mere war of words .
Several public figures of extreme relevance on the international scene entered the controversy initiated by the American diplomat , including the German ambassador to Poland , Rolf Nikel , who stated that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact served to “ prepare ” the criminal invasion and that the Soviet Union collaborated with Adolf Hitler ’ s government for a brutal division of Poland .
The Polish government , as was to be expected , also did not remain silent and the Prime Minister , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of having lied about Poland several times .
Above all , some questions remain unanswered in the midst of the case : who is interested in reviewing the history of the World War II , precisely at this specific point ?
What is the interest behind the absurd idea of a coalition between Hitler and Stalin to divide Poland and start a war that has cost the lives of millions on both sides ?
The growth of the revisionism serves the specific interests of the groups that propagate these ideas .
In general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , in the age of social networks , fake news , mass media and the information society as a whole , it has become much easier to spread any kind of lie or absurd thesis , devoid of any material evidence , and gaining support , credibility and advocates worldwide .
Everywhere , this dark face of the contemporary world has been used politically , favoring groups that , for some reason , have something to lose with the triumph of the truth .
The causes of the WWII fuse are clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-aggression pact between Soviets and Germans has also always been a scientific consensus : it has little importance in the history of the conflict , representing nothing but a specific international maneuver that served common interests at a given moment and has nothing to do with the real causes of the beginning of the war , which concern only the interests of Germans and Western Europeans .
The historical tensions between Russia and Poland in no way coincided with German interests in the region , which motivated different interventions for different purposes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been presented as uncontroversial in the Academy , with revisionist studies on World War II being reserved for other themes of the conflict , whose obscurity can still be raised – which does not apply in the case of the invasion of Poland .
Russia maintains a clear and coherent view of the Soviet past , not neglecting its errors or diminishing its merits .
The same can not be said of practically any other country abroad , mainly in Europe .
There were no greater victims of Germans in WWII than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soviet Russia was the country with the highest number of deaths and achieved , despite much blood spilled , a heroic and fundamental victory in the formation of the contemporary world map .
To say that Germany and the USSR entered into a secret coalition of cooperation at the beginning of the war sounds not only ridiculous but also dangerous .
From that moment on , anything can be said about the war , including the most complete distortion of its causes and results .
A complete situation of insecurity of historical knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests of a nation-state aligned with the United States of America .
If the absurdity of the idea of changing the history books to enshrine an unsubstantiated lie , masked under the pseudoscientific nickname of “ revisionism ” , is not enough to raise awareness among the Polish government and its allies in the West , the best thing is for both to be careful , for there is much more revisionism to be done on these than on the Soviets .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Lucas Leiroz, research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro…
Poland is encouraging the growth of historical revisionism of the World War II. Apparently, there is nothing necessarily wrong in revisiting the data referring to any past armed conflict, however, it is not the desire for the discovery of the truth that has motivated these pseudoscientific “researches”, but the desire to spread lies with political intentions. This is what we can conclude when, officially, a government decides to contradict the historiographical consensus and to hurt the history and feelings of an entire people, as the Polish government has been doing.
Last year, a controversy involving the subject gained prominence in the media around the world, when the American ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, published a provocative text on a social network, in which it implied that there was a collaboration between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for the invasion and division of Poland in 1939, at the beginning of the World War II. The post generated outrage and response from president Vladimir Putin himself.
But things go far beyond a mere war of words. Several public figures of extreme relevance on the international scene entered the controversy initiated by the American diplomat, including the German ambassador to Poland, Rolf Nikel, who stated that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact served to “prepare” the criminal invasion and that the Soviet Union collaborated with Adolf Hitler’s government for a brutal division of Poland. The Polish government, as was to be expected, also did not remain silent and the Prime Minister, Mr. Mateusz Morawiecki, accused President Putin of having lied about Poland several times.
Above all, some questions remain unanswered in the midst of the case: who is interested in reviewing the history of the World War II, precisely at this specific point? What is the interest behind the absurd idea of a coalition between Hitler and Stalin to divide Poland and start a war that has cost the lives of millions on both sides?
The growth of the revisionism serves the specific interests of the groups that propagate these ideas. In general, it is not wrong to say that, in the age of social networks, fake news, mass media and the information society as a whole, it has become much easier to spread any kind of lie or absurd thesis, devoid of any material evidence, and gaining support, credibility and advocates worldwide. Everywhere, this dark face of the contemporary world has been used politically, favoring groups that, for some reason, have something to lose with the triumph of the truth.
The causes of the WWII fuse are clear. Likewise, the relevance of the non-aggression pact between Soviets and Germans has also always been a scientific consensus: it has little importance in the history of the conflict, representing nothing but a specific international maneuver that served common interests at a given moment and has nothing to do with the real causes of the beginning of the war, which concern only the interests of Germans and Western Europeans. The historical tensions between Russia and Poland in no way coincided with German interests in the region, which motivated different interventions for different purposes. In fact, these facts have always been presented as uncontroversial in the Academy, with revisionist studies on World War II being reserved for other themes of the conflict, whose obscurity can still be raised – which does not apply in the case of the invasion of Poland.
Russia maintains a clear and coherent view of the Soviet past, not neglecting its errors or diminishing its merits. The same cannot be said of practically any other country abroad, mainly in Europe. There were no greater victims of Germans in WWII than the Soviet Union and the Russian people. Soviet Russia was the country with the highest number of deaths and achieved, despite much blood spilled, a heroic and fundamental victory in the formation of the contemporary world map.
To say that Germany and the USSR entered into a secret coalition of cooperation at the beginning of the war sounds not only ridiculous but also dangerous. From that moment on, anything can be said about the war, including the most complete distortion of its causes and results. A complete situation of insecurity of historical knowledge is created, simply to safeguard the interests of a nation-state aligned with the United States of America.
If the absurdity of the idea of changing the history books to enshrine an unsubstantiated lie, masked under the pseudoscientific nickname of “revisionism”, is not enough to raise awareness among the Polish government and its allies in the West, the best thing is for both to be careful, for there is much more revisionism to be done on these than on the Soviets.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-18--Russia Needs to Prioritize Greece as Relations Rift with Turkey

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… A revealing poll released earlier last week by the highly-reliable Pew Research Center found that the majority of people in Greece and Turkey viewed NATO unfavourably – the only states of the 16 NATO members surveyed to view the U.S.-led organization in this way .
In fact , in the case of Greece , it was one of the very few countries where anti-NATO sentiment was shared by the left and right wings of the political spectrum .
An average of 53 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a positive view of NATO with an average of 27 % of respondents having a negative view .
Favorable positions were extremely high in some countries , such as Poland at 82 % , but in Greece 51 % of peoples viewed NATO unfavorably while 55 % of Turks also did .
From the Greek perspective , they have a history of defying NATO by supporting the Serbs during the destruction of Yugoslavia and are becoming increasingly frustrated with NATO “ ally ” Turkey violating its airspace daily and making threats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Turkish perspective , they are frustrated that the U.S. openly supports the Kurdish People ’ s Protection Units ( YPG ) , a Syrian extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party , that Ankara claims is a terrorist organization .
However , the poll collected its data before the Syrian Army ’ s latest operation to liberate Idlib province from Turkish-backed jihadists .
Rather , the crisis in Idlib has firmly put Turkey back into NATO ’ s sphere as the Syrian Army ’ s offensive has deepened the rift between Russia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 % of Turks trust Russia according to a February 2 poll , a far cry from a November 2018 INR poll that found 51 % of Turks viewed Russia favourably .
This also comes as Russian Ambassador to Turkey Alexei Yerkhov told Zvezda days ago that he constantly receives threats and insults .
Some threats include how Turkey “ will build skyscrapers from the skulls ” of Russia ’ s military and “ Pay the price for every drop of blood ” Russia sheds .
Anti-Russian sentiment is growing so much in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Russians , are being desecrated .
As explained in a previous article , a 2013 study found Greece was the only European Union country where favorable views towards Russia prevailed at 63 % ( 33 % unfavourable ) and views on Russian President Vladimir Putin was positive , at 52 % of people .
Although this is a significant decrease from the 2013 poll , it does not factor in how the Russian sale of the S-400 to Turkey affected Greek opinions towards Russia and its president .
However , a 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Greeks view the U.S. favourably .
This demonstrates that Moscow could have a real ally within the NATO bloc where the majority of civilians look at Russia favourably , and one that Moscow should take every advantage of .
The Greek government is still firmly in the Atlanticist camp , but the Greek public are in majority support of Russia .
Moscow must take advantage of Greece as it is a rare member of NATO and the European Union where most people are Russophilic .
An increased Russian tourist intake into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Russian peoples .
In addition to tourism , Russian businesses must be encouraged to invest in Greece .
As Greece is an energy crossroad and also has oil and gas reserves in its maritime space , Russia has immense expertise in these fields and must make active efforts to invest in the country .
China , a country with no historical , cultural or religious connections to Greece unlike Russia , has considerably increased its popularity in Greece by assisting in job creation in the economic-stricken country .
By providing job opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With Turkey becoming an unreliable partner for Russia , through these soft power approaches , Russia can increase its influence to the Greek people which will inevitably lead into the political sphere .
Turkey is much more geostrategic than Greece and Russia invested heavily into improving relations with Ankara through extremely difficult times .
The reality is that Russia would find much more success in building flourishing relations with a NATO member by prioritizing relationship building with Greece .
This would have the double advantage as Greece , unlike Turkey , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turkey who defied NATO for self-serving interest in attaining Russian weapons , Greece has defied NATO under pressure from the Greek people who have overwhelming solidarity for Serbia , particularly during the destruction of Yugoslavia .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
A revealing poll released earlier last week by the highly-reliable Pew Research Center found that the majority of people in Greece and Turkey viewed NATO unfavourably – the only states of the 16 NATO members surveyed to view the U.S.-led organization in this way. In fact, in the case of Greece, it was one of the very few countries where anti-NATO sentiment was shared by the left and right wings of the political spectrum. An average of 53% of citizens of the 16 surveyed countries had a positive view of NATO with an average of 27% of respondents having a negative view. Favorable positions were extremely high in some countries, such as Poland at 82%, but in Greece 51% of peoples viewed NATO unfavorably while 55% of Turks also did.
From the Greek perspective, they have a history of defying NATO by supporting the Serbs during the destruction of Yugoslavia and are becoming increasingly frustrated with NATO “ally” Turkey violating its airspace daily and making threats to invade its eastern Aegean islands. From the Turkish perspective, they are frustrated that the U.S. openly supports the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), a Syrian extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party, that Ankara claims is a terrorist organization.
However, the poll collected its data before the Syrian Army’s latest operation to liberate Idlib province from Turkish-backed jihadists. Rather, the crisis in Idlib has firmly put Turkey back into NATO’s sphere as the Syrian Army’s offensive has deepened the rift between Russia and Turkey, so much so that only 16% of Turks trust Russia according to a February 2 poll, a far cry from a November 2018 INR poll that found 51% of Turks viewed Russia favourably. This also comes as Russian Ambassador to Turkey Alexei Yerkhov told Zvezda days ago that he constantly receives threats and insults. Some threats include how Turkey “will build skyscrapers from the skulls” of Russia’s military and “Pay the price for every drop of blood” Russia sheds. Anti-Russian sentiment is growing so much in Turkey that Christian graves, including those of Russians, are being desecrated.
As explained in a previous article, a 2013 study found Greece was the only European Union country where favorable views towards Russia prevailed at 63% (33% unfavourable) and views on Russian President Vladimir Putin was positive, at 52% of people. Although this is a significant decrease from the 2013 poll, it does not factor in how the Russian sale of the S-400 to Turkey affected Greek opinions towards Russia and its president. However, a 2018 Pew poll also found that only 36% of Greeks view the U.S. favourably. This demonstrates that Moscow could have a real ally within the NATO bloc where the majority of civilians look at Russia favourably, and one that Moscow should take every advantage of.
The Greek government is still firmly in the Atlanticist camp, but the Greek public are in majority support of Russia. Moscow must take advantage of Greece as it is a rare member of NATO and the European Union where most people are Russophilic. An increased Russian tourist intake into Greece will inevitably increase exchanges between Greek and Russian peoples.
In addition to tourism, Russian businesses must be encouraged to invest in Greece. As Greece is an energy crossroad and also has oil and gas reserves in its maritime space, Russia has immense expertise in these fields and must make active efforts to invest in the country. China, a country with no historical, cultural or religious connections to Greece unlike Russia, has considerably increased its popularity in Greece by assisting in job creation in the economic-stricken country. By providing job opportunities, Russophilia will inevitably increase in Greece.
With Turkey becoming an unreliable partner for Russia, through these soft power approaches, Russia can increase its influence to the Greek people which will inevitably lead into the political sphere. Turkey is much more geostrategic than Greece and Russia invested heavily into improving relations with Ankara through extremely difficult times. The reality is that Russia would find much more success in building flourishing relations with a NATO member by prioritizing relationship building with Greece. This would have the double advantage as Greece, unlike Turkey, is also a European Union member.
Unlike Turkey who defied NATO for self-serving interest in attaining Russian weapons, Greece has defied NATO under pressure from the Greek people who have overwhelming solidarity for Serbia, particularly during the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-18--DOJ civil war aims to remove AG Barr & weaken Trump (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Roger Stone , Andrew McCabe , John Brennan and Michael Flynn…key players in the deep state war to destroy US President Donald Trump .
More that 1,100 ex-DOJ officials are going Attorney General Barr demanding he resign for his decision to examine the harsh sentencing recommendation from prosecutors of Roger Stone .
Ex-DOJ officials are calling for current DOJ officials to rise up , report abuses , and withdraw from cases that involve ‘ misconduct ’ .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
The Deep State-Democrat-media complex has been attacking AG Bill Barr since he smacked down Mueller ’ s prosecutors for abusing Roger Stone by recommending a 7 to 9 year prison sentence for process crimes .
The shampeachment hoax blew up in the Democrats ’ faces so they had to cook up a new scandal .
The new left-wing narrative being parroted by the media and other Deep State actors is that there is a “ crisis at the Justice Department.
” The Washington Post and New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former DOJ DC swamp creatures signed a letter calling for Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s resignation .
The letter also called on current DOJ officials to “ report ” abuses , resign in protest and to withdraw from cases that involve “ misconduct.
” More than 1,100 former Justice Department employees signed a public letter Sunday urging Attorney General William P. Barr to resign over his handling of the case of President Trump ’ s longtime friend Roger Stone — and exhorted current department employees to report any unethical conduct .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the President ’ s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words , ” the Justice Department alumni wrote in the letter posted online .
“ Those actions , and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice ’ s reputation for integrity and the rule of law , require Mr. Barr to resign.
” Signatures for the letter were gathered by Protect Democracy , a group that has been critical of Barr ’ s handling of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III ’ s investigation into Russian election interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is little chance the signatories ’ criticism will lead to Barr ’ s departure , adding , “ because we have little expectation he will do so , it falls to the Department ’ s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan , apolitical justice.
” The former DOJ officials called for an uprising of current DOJ officials .
The letter called on DOJ officials to follow the “ heroic ” example of the four Mueller prosecutors who resigned from Roger Stone ’ s case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuses to the Inspector General , the Office of Professional Responsibility , and Congress ; to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office ; to withdraw from cases that involve such directives or other misconduct ; and , if necessary , to resign and report publicly — in a manner consistent with professional ethics — to the American people the reasons for their resignation.
” Tom Fitton referred to the DOJ as a “ leftist fiefdom .
”

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Roger Stone, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan and Michael Flynn…key players in the deep state war to destroy US President Donald Trump.
More that 1,100 ex-DOJ officials are going Attorney General Barr demanding he resign for his decision to examine the harsh sentencing recommendation from prosecutors of Roger Stone. Ex-DOJ officials are calling for current DOJ officials to rise up, report abuses, and withdraw from cases that involve ‘misconduct’.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via The Gateway Pundit…
The Deep State-Democrat-media complex has been attacking AG Bill Barr since he smacked down Mueller’s prosecutors for abusing Roger Stone by recommending a 7 to 9 year prison sentence for process crimes.
The shampeachment hoax blew up in the Democrats’ faces so they had to cook up a new scandal.
The new left-wing narrative being parroted by the media and other Deep State actors is that there is a “crisis at the Justice Department.”
The Washington Post and New York Times happily reported that more than 1,100 former DOJ DC swamp creatures signed a letter calling for Attorney General Bill Barr’s resignation.
The letter also called on current DOJ officials to “report” abuses, resign in protest and to withdraw from cases that involve “misconduct.”
More than 1,100 former Justice Department employees signed a public letter Sunday urging Attorney General William P. Barr to resign over his handling of the case of President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone — and exhorted current department employees to report any unethical conduct. “Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words,” the Justice Department alumni wrote in the letter posted online. “Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign.” Signatures for the letter were gathered by Protect Democracy, a group that has been critical of Barr’s handling of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian election interference and Trump. The letter acknowledges there is little chance the signatories’ criticism will lead to Barr’s departure, adding, “because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.”
The former DOJ officials called for an uprising of current DOJ officials.
The letter called on DOJ officials to follow the “heroic” example of the four Mueller prosecutors who resigned from Roger Stone’s case “and be prepared to report future abuses to the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and Congress; to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office; to withdraw from cases that involve such directives or other misconduct; and, if necessary, to resign and report publicly — in a manner consistent with professional ethics — to the American people the reasons for their resignation.”
Tom Fitton referred to the DOJ as a “leftist fiefdom.”
Confirming DOJ is leftist fiefdom: Leftist group organizes "former" DoJ gov't employees to attack Barr for refusing to abuse Stone. Same Group Sent Similar Letter Pushing for Prosecution of @RealDonaldTrump. Of course @NyTimes is happy about ltr. https://t.co/E5I2iNwVl1 — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) February 16, 2020
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-19--Times newspaper’s latest spy story: GRU agents hit the Irish coast

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Johanna Ross , journalist based in Edinburgh , Scotland… Someone ’ s clearly been watching a bit too much James Bond .
‘ Thunderball ’ to be precise .
That ’ s what springs to mind when reading The Times ’ latest article on GRU agents having landed on Irish shores to investigate transatlantic cables .
The piece , published on Sunday asserts that ‘ Russia has sent intelligence agents to Ireland to map the precise location of the fibre-optic , ocean-bed cables that connect Europe to America , gardai suspect ’ .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concluded that ‘ Russia intended to use technology to monitor data exchanges on the cables , to give Moscow an insight into internet communications ’ .
The newspaper also claims that the ‘ agents ’ were also monitored ‘ mapping Dublin Port ’ and subsequently security has been enhanced around the Irish coast .
The account of what supposedly happened is followed up by quotes from Defence experts , who hammer home the ‘ party line ’ of Russian aggression and the threat faced by the ‘ West ’ .
There are many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which a layman would notice is the lack of concrete facts presented .
Indeed , what is interesting is not so much what information is provided , but what is absent .
We are not told when the supposed trip took place ( not even the year ) , who the individuals were , and on what basis it has been concluded that the individuals concerned were spies .
Instead the article puts forward pure speculation as to what the motivations of the individuals were , if they indeed existed at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that agents came to Ireland in order to map fibre-optic cables with a view to tampering with them in future – is quite frankly ludicrous and is clearly the imagination of someone who does not understand how modern technology works .
No information is given as to how the operation would be carried out , only that Russians would ‘ use technology to monitor data exchanges ’ .
Really ?
If a foreign security service does want to meddle in another nation ’ s communications , it doesn ’ t need to physically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need to physically approach a victim ’ s computer in order to break into their email .
The very people who have been accusing Russia of remotely meddling in US and UK elections don ’ t seem to be applying the same logic to this case .
Furthermore , there shouldn ’ t be any need for anyone to map the location of the underwater cables , as comprehensive maps are available online , posted together with coordinates and oceanographic survey data , by the Irish government .
So let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , Russian agents did not arrive in Ireland with the intention of derailing transatlantic communications .
What would be the purpose of such a story in The Times ?
The answer to this lies in the context and timing of such an article .
Since the historic Irish election result last weekend , British and Irish media has been dominated by the debate surrounding Irish unification .
The victory for Sinn Fein , the Irish nationalist party , with unification at the top of its agenda , was indicative of just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last decade or so .
Brexit , and the discussion which emerged regarding the future status of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic , has once again put the idea of a United Ireland back on the table .
All it would take for Northern Ireland to secede from the United Kingdom would be a referendum favouring reunification with Ireland .
This , of course , is a threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom , and as is the case with the question of Scottish Independence , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to derail such prospects .
The best way of doing so , as has been tried and tested by the British establishment over the decades , is propaganda .
It could therefore be argued that such an article is intended to scaremonger the Northern Irish into thinking that without the UK , their security would be jeopardized .
This idea is supported later in the article with quotes from Mark Galeotti , an ‘ expert on Russian security and politics ’ who says that ‘ Ireland doesn ’ t have a counter-intelligence capability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target.
’ The description of Galeotti does not do him justice however .
He has previously been named as being involved with the UK ’ s government funded anti-Russia propaganda campaign , the ‘ Integrity Initiative ’ , which in the past has literally paid experts to provide opinions in articles and give interviews in which they highlight the ‘ Russian threat ’ .
It ’ s therefore perhaps no coincidence that he has been approached to make a contribution to this piece .
So the next time you read a piece on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times…well I ’ ve said it all really , haven ’ t I ?

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland…
Someone’s clearly been watching a bit too much James Bond. ‘Thunderball’ to be precise. That’s what springs to mind when reading The Times’ latest article on GRU agents having landed on Irish shores to investigate transatlantic cables. The piece, published on Sunday asserts that ‘Russia has sent intelligence agents to Ireland to map the precise location of the fibre-optic, ocean-bed cables that connect Europe to America, gardai suspect’. It adds that the Irish security services have concluded that ‘Russia intended to use technology to monitor data exchanges on the cables, to give Moscow an insight into internet communications’. The newspaper also claims that the ‘agents’ were also monitored ‘mapping Dublin Port’ and subsequently security has been enhanced around the Irish coast. The account of what supposedly happened is followed up by quotes from Defence experts, who hammer home the ‘party line’ of Russian aggression and the threat faced by the ‘West’.
There are many problems with this article. The first which a layman would notice is the lack of concrete facts presented. Indeed, what is interesting is not so much what information is provided, but what is absent. We are not told when the supposed trip took place (not even the year), who the individuals were, and on what basis it has been concluded that the individuals concerned were spies. Instead the article puts forward pure speculation as to what the motivations of the individuals were, if they indeed existed at all.
Secondly, what is being suggested – that agents came to Ireland in order to map fibre-optic cables with a view to tampering with them in future – is quite frankly ludicrous and is clearly the imagination of someone who does not understand how modern technology works. No information is given as to how the operation would be carried out, only that Russians would ‘use technology to monitor data exchanges’. Really? If a foreign security service does want to meddle in another nation’s communications, it doesn’t need to physically tamper with cables. Hackers don’t need to physically approach a victim’s computer in order to break into their email. The very people who have been accusing Russia of remotely meddling in US and UK elections don’t seem to be applying the same logic to this case. Furthermore, there shouldn’t be any need for anyone to map the location of the underwater cables, as comprehensive maps are available online, posted together with coordinates and oceanographic survey data, by the Irish government.
So let’s briefly entertain the possibility that, in fact, Russian agents did not arrive in Ireland with the intention of derailing transatlantic communications. What would be the purpose of such a story in The Times? The answer to this lies in the context and timing of such an article. Since the historic Irish election result last weekend, British and Irish media has been dominated by the debate surrounding Irish unification. The victory for Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party, with unification at the top of its agenda, was indicative of just how much has changed in Ireland in the last decade or so. Brexit, and the discussion which emerged regarding the future status of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, has once again put the idea of a United Ireland back on the table. All it would take for Northern Ireland to secede from the United Kingdom would be a referendum favouring reunification with Ireland. This, of course, is a threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, and as is the case with the question of Scottish Independence, the British state will do all it can to derail such prospects. The best way of doing so, as has been tried and tested by the British establishment over the decades, is propaganda. It could therefore be argued that such an article is intended to scaremonger the Northern Irish into thinking that without the UK, their security would be jeopardized.
This idea is supported later in the article with quotes from Mark Galeotti, an ‘expert on Russian security and politics’ who says that ‘Ireland doesn’t have a counter-intelligence capability. It’s a relatively soft target.’ The description of Galeotti does not do him justice however. He has previously been named as being involved with the UK’s government funded anti-Russia propaganda campaign, the ‘Integrity Initiative’, which in the past has literally paid experts to provide opinions in articles and give interviews in which they highlight the ‘Russian threat’. It’s therefore perhaps no coincidence that he has been approached to make a contribution to this piece.
So the next time you read a piece on the ‘Russian threat’ in The Times…well I’ve said it all really, haven’t I?
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-19--Erdogan hints at using Idlib as leverage against the Kurds in Syria (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss escalation of tensions between Turkey , Syria , Russia and the United States in Idlib , Syria .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
President Trump spoke with Turkey ’ s president on Saturday just days after U.S. forces clashed with Syrian government forces near an area where Turkish forces are attempting to resettle thousands of Syrian refugees .
Deputy White House press secretary Judd Deere told pool reporters Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tayyip Erdoğan a day earlier and “ expressed concern over the violence in Idlib , Syria , ” referring to recent clashes between Turkish and Syrian government forces in the region .
“ Yesterday , President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey .
President Trump expressed concern over the violence in Idlib , Syria , and thanked President Erdogan for Turkey ’ s efforts to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe , ” Deere said .
“ President Trump conveyed the United States ’ desire to see an end to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime ’ s atrocities and for a political resolution to the Syrian conflict .
President Trump also reiterated that continued foreign interference in Libya would only serve to worsen the situation.
” Clashes occurred earlier this month between pro-government forces and Turkish military units in northeastern Syria , the site of a military assault by Turkish forces last year as part of an operation by Turkey ’ s government to resettle more than one million Syrian refugees .
Days ago the region was subject to further violence as U.S. forces fired on pro-government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , killing one Syrian .
“ After Coalition troops issued a series of warnings and de-escalation attempts , the patrol came under small arms fire from unknown individuals .
In self-defense , Coalition troops returned fire , ” said a coalition forces spokesman .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss escalation of tensions between Turkey, Syria, Russia and the United States in Idlib, Syria.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via The Hill…
President Trump spoke with Turkey’s president on Saturday just days after U.S. forces clashed with Syrian government forces near an area where Turkish forces are attempting to resettle thousands of Syrian refugees.
Deputy White House press secretary Judd Deere told pool reporters Sunday evening that Trump had spoken with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a day earlier and “expressed concern over the violence in Idlib, Syria,” referring to recent clashes between Turkish and Syrian government forces in the region.
“Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. President Trump expressed concern over the violence in Idlib, Syria, and thanked President Erdogan for Turkey’s efforts to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe,” Deere said.
“President Trump conveyed the United States’ desire to see an end to Russia’s support for the Assad regime’s atrocities and for a political resolution to the Syrian conflict. President Trump also reiterated that continued foreign interference in Libya would only serve to worsen the situation.”
Clashes occurred earlier this month between pro-government forces and Turkish military units in northeastern Syria, the site of a military assault by Turkish forces last year as part of an operation by Turkey’s government to resettle more than one million Syrian refugees.
Days ago the region was subject to further violence as U.S. forces fired on pro-government militants who were allegedly throwing rocks at them, killing one Syrian.
“After Coalition troops issued a series of warnings and de-escalation attempts, the patrol came under small arms fire from unknown individuals. In self-defense, Coalition troops returned fire,” said a coalition forces spokesman.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-19--Europe’s Nuclear Weapons and the Arms Reduction Treaty

Authored by Brian Cloughley via The Strategic Culture Foundation : It is intriguing but almost inevitable that examination of so many European policies must begin with reference to the United States .
The reason is that the US is majestically ( and the word is used advisedly ) important to Europe , and no matter what opinions may be held of Washington ’ s policies under the erratic Trump , these will always have influence in Europe ’ s capitals .
One major Europe-US consideration is the Trump administration ’ s decisions on nuclear strategy which have an enormous impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relations indefinitely .
This has been examined by President Macron of France whose recent on Defence and Deterrence Strategy has not received the attention it merits in the US media .
He delivered his talk at the military ’ s War College on February 7 , and opened by making the point that he was the first president to speak there since Charles de Gaulle “ announced on 3 November 1959 , sixty years ago , the creation of what he then called the force de frappe ” .
The force de frappe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ( now less combatively referred to as ‘ deterrence ’ ) and is comparatively modest , consisting only of some 300 weapons , as by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2019 .
Of course the word ‘ modest ’ in reference to nuclear weapons ’ arsenals is somewhat misleading , if only because 300 of them ( or Israel ’ s 100 or so ; China ’ s 290 ; Pakistan ’ s 200 or India ’ s 180 ) could destroy the world .
But it is used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ super-powers , the US and Russia , which each have over 6,000 .
Macron said that “ Russian-American bilateral treaties relate to a chapter of history – that of the Cold War – but also to a reality that is still relevant today , that of the considerable size of arsenals still being held by Moscow and Washington , without a possible comparison with those of other nuclear-weapon-States .
In this respect , it is critical that the New Start Treaty be extended beyond 2021.
” And there he put his finger on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty agreed between the US and Russia — was signed in 2010 and if Trump fails to take action it will expire in February 2021 .
Its main “ Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms ” , according to by the US Congressional Research Service “ limits each side to no more than 800 deployed and nondeployed land-based intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) and submarine-launched ballistic missile ( SLBM ) launchers and deployed and nondeployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear armaments… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no more than 1,550 deployed warheads ; those are the actual number of warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs , and one warhead for each deployed heavy bomber.
” The accord could be described as modest but exceptionally important , and has been acknowledged as such by Russia whose deputy foreign minister , Sergey Ryabkov , on February 11 that the country has “ confirmed its readiness at the highest level to extend this treaty without any preconditions and , moreover , to do it urgently.
” But in spite of the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the notice of the American side by a diplomatic note at the end of last year ” there has been no positive reaction from Washington , which is disturbing , to put it mildly .
Macron was right in observing that “ there can be no defence and security project of European citizens without political vision seeking to advance gradual rebuilding of confidence with Russia ” and he has made it clear that for the moment there is little prospect of true détente ( to use the old Cold War term ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing and dialogue is weakening precisely at a time when the number of security issues that need to be addressed with Moscow are increasing.
” But Trump does not appear to be prepared to talk with Russia about any security problems .
As noted by Defense News on February 10 , his fiscal 2021 budget details a massive increase in expenditure on nuclear weapons , which is not the signal that Washington should be sending to China and Russia .
The $ 28.9 billion to be spent on nuclear modernisation includes over 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 billion on B-21 bombers , and a billion for the Trident missile life-extension programme .
All of these are notably offensive “ mutually assured destruction ” style decisions , and by no stretch of the imagination can be described as confidence-building or indicative of desire to embrace the Start Treaty — which could be agreed by a simple presidential signature .
There is no requirement for any legislative procedure .
The Washington Post , no champion of Russia , and indeed a fervent critic of Russian policies about almost everything , observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Putin wants to extend arms control .
What ’ s Trump waiting for ?
” The paper referred to the New Start Treaty in supportive terms and notes that it “ provides for intrusive verification and ensures stability in nuclear arsenals .
If New Start lapses , both countries will be free to deploy more nuclear warheads and build new generations of weapons and delivery systems ” — which has been heralded in the US by the Pentagon ’ s programmes .
At a meeting of the US-Nato military alliance in Brussels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no mention of Washington ’ s impending expansion of nuclear weapons ’ capabilities , but much focus on criticising Russia and supporting Ukraine while attempting to justify Nato ’ s movement further away from Europe to “ enhance Nato Mission Iraq ” which is madness .
Macron has a wider and more pragmatic view of international affairs and wants Europe to devise “ an international arms control agenda ” because “ the end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , the uncertainties about the future of the New Start Treaty and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Europe have led to the possibility of a return of pure unhindered military and nuclear competition by 2021 , which has not been seen since the end of the 1960s.
” Macron is concerned that dialogue is being rejected in favour of nuclear sabre-rattling , but unfortunately can not rely for support from the only other nuclear weapons-capable country in Europe , the United Kingdom , which is squandering billions on its nuclear programme that its National Audit Office reported is facing “ delays of between one and six years , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spite of this shambles the UK ’ s nuclear policy will not alter , because prime minister Johnson has approved expenditure on replacing the existing Trident nuclear missiles , and the independent Forces Network records that he voted for “ a series of proposed spending cuts and changes to the welfare system in favour of spending on new nuclear weapons.
” Further , Britain is heavily influenced by Washington in its nuclear posture , as made clear by US Admiral Charles Richard whose testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear warhead will “ support a parallel Replacement Warhead Program in the United Kingdom whose nuclear deterrent plays an absolutely vital role in Nato ’ s overall defence posture.
” It seems that in Europe Emmanuel Macron is a lonely voice in attempting to encourage Trump to renew the Arms Reduction Treaty and that his only significant supporter in moving towards dialogue with Russia is Angela Merkel , who has almost as many domestic political problems as he has .
It is hoped that more nations will pay attention to Macron ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no defence and security project for European citizens without a political vision that seeks to progressively restore trust with Russia.
” If there is no movement towards dialogue with the intention of establishing a latter-day détente , and if Trump refuses to extend New Start , then the nuclear dominance option , as already being embraced by Washington , will further destabilise our already shaky world .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Authored by Brian Cloughley via The Strategic Culture Foundation:
It is intriguing but almost inevitable that examination of so many European policies must begin with reference to the United States. The reason is that the US is majestically (and the word is used advisedly) important to Europe, and no matter what opinions may be held of Washington’s policies under the erratic Trump, these will always have influence in Europe’s capitals.
One major Europe-US consideration is the Trump administration’s decisions on nuclear strategy which have an enormous impact that will be likely to shape international relations indefinitely.
This has been examined by President Macron of France whose recent speech on Defence and Deterrence Strategy has not received the attention it merits in the US media. He delivered his talk at the military’s War College on February 7, and opened by making the point that he was the first president to speak there since Charles de Gaulle “announced on 3 November 1959, sixty years ago, the creation of what he then called the force de frappe”. The force de frappe is literally the nuclear ‘Strike Force’ (now less combatively referred to as ‘deterrence’) and is comparatively modest, consisting only of some 300 weapons, as assessed by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2019.
Of course the word ‘modest’ in reference to nuclear weapons’ arsenals is somewhat misleading, if only because 300 of them (or Israel’s 100 or so; China’s 290; Pakistan’s 200 or India’s 180) could destroy the world. But it is used in comparison to the arsenals of the nuclear super-powers, the US and Russia, which each have over 6,000. Macron said that “Russian-American bilateral treaties relate to a chapter of history – that of the Cold War – but also to a reality that is still relevant today, that of the considerable size of arsenals still being held by Moscow and Washington, without a possible comparison with those of other nuclear-weapon-States. In this respect, it is critical that the New Start Treaty be extended beyond 2021.” And there he put his finger on the button.
The New Start Treaty — the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty agreed between the US and Russia — was signed in 2010 and if Trump fails to take action it will expire in February 2021. Its main “Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms”, according to an April 2019 report by the US Congressional Research Service “limits each side to no more than 800 deployed and nondeployed land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers and deployed and nondeployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear armaments… The treaty also limits each side to no more than 1,550 deployed warheads; those are the actual number of warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, and one warhead for each deployed heavy bomber.”
The accord could be described as modest but exceptionally important, and has been acknowledged as such by Russia whose deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ryabkov, stated on February 11 that the country has “confirmed its readiness at the highest level to extend this treaty without any preconditions and, moreover, to do it urgently.”
But in spite of the fact that Russian readiness “was officially brought to the notice of the American side by a diplomatic note at the end of last year” there has been no positive reaction from Washington, which is disturbing, to put it mildly. Macron was right in observing that “there can be no defence and security project of European citizens without political vision seeking to advance gradual rebuilding of confidence with Russia” and he has made it clear that for the moment there is little prospect of true détente (to use the old Cold War term) because the “divide between us is growing and dialogue is weakening precisely at a time when the number of security issues that need to be addressed with Moscow are increasing.”
But Trump does not appear to be prepared to talk with Russia about any security problems. As noted by Defense News on February 10, his fiscal 2021 budget details a massive increase in expenditure on nuclear weapons, which is not the signal that Washington should be sending to China and Russia. The $28.9 billion to be spent on nuclear modernisation includes over 4 billion for Columbia Class submarines, almost 3 billion on B-21 bombers, and a billion for the Trident missile life-extension programme. All of these are notably offensive “mutually assured destruction” style decisions, and by no stretch of the imagination can be described as confidence-building or indicative of desire to embrace the Start Treaty — which could be agreed by a simple presidential signature. There is no requirement for any legislative procedure.
The Washington Post, no champion of Russia, and indeed a fervent critic of Russian policies about almost everything, observed on February 10 in an editorial that “Putin wants to extend arms control. What’s Trump waiting for?” The paper referred to the New Start Treaty in supportive terms and notes that it “provides for intrusive verification and ensures stability in nuclear arsenals. If New Start lapses, both countries will be free to deploy more nuclear warheads and build new generations of weapons and delivery systems” — which has been heralded in the US by the Pentagon’s programmes.
At a meeting of the US-Nato military alliance in Brussels on February 12-13, however, there was no mention of Washington’s impending expansion of nuclear weapons’ capabilities, but much focus on criticising Russia and supporting Ukraine while attempting to justify Nato’s movement further away from Europe to “enhance Nato Mission Iraq” which is madness.
Macron has a wider and more pragmatic view of international affairs and wants Europe to devise “an international arms control agenda” because “the end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the uncertainties about the future of the New Start Treaty and the crisis of the conventional arms control regime in Europe have led to the possibility of a return of pure unhindered military and nuclear competition by 2021, which has not been seen since the end of the 1960s.”
Macron is concerned that dialogue is being rejected in favour of nuclear sabre-rattling, but unfortunately cannot rely for support from the only other nuclear weapons-capable country in Europe, the United Kingdom, which is squandering billions on its nuclear programme that its National Audit Office reported is facing “delays of between one and six years, with costs increasing by £1.3 bn.” In spite of this shambles the UK’s nuclear policy will not alter, because prime minister Johnson has approved expenditure on replacing the existing Trident nuclear missiles, and the independent Forces Network records that he voted for “a series of proposed spending cuts and changes to the welfare system in favour of spending on new nuclear weapons.”
Further, Britain is heavily influenced by Washington in its nuclear posture, as made clear by US Admiral Charles Richard whose testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 13 included the statement that the new W-93 nuclear warhead will “support a parallel Replacement Warhead Program in the United Kingdom whose nuclear deterrent plays an absolutely vital role in Nato’s overall defence posture.”
It seems that in Europe Emmanuel Macron is a lonely voice in attempting to encourage Trump to renew the Arms Reduction Treaty and that his only significant supporter in moving towards dialogue with Russia is Angela Merkel, who has almost as many domestic political problems as he has. It is hoped that more nations will pay attention to Macron’s wise pronouncement that “there can be no defence and security project for European citizens without a political vision that seeks to progressively restore trust with Russia.”
If there is no movement towards dialogue with the intention of establishing a latter-day détente, and if Trump refuses to extend New Start, then the nuclear dominance option, as already being embraced by Washington, will further destabilise our already shaky world.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-02-19--Andrew Yang  — Right Message, Wrong Target (Part 2)

The solution for the funding of UBI is very simple , it should be paid out of newly created debt-free money .
And when people hear this they cry instinctively “ That would cause inflation ” .
No !
Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods .
The people at the bottom of society : the underclass , the homeless , the unemployable , do not have too much money , some of them have no money at all .
While simply printing money is no solution , and printing it without regard to the goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , printing money is relatively inexpensive , and printing it electronically literally costs nothing .
The central bank does this all the time by means of a conjuring trick known as quantitative easing .
The big difference is that QE involves printing this money and giving it to the clearing banks , where the bulk of it is used for speculation .
By creating the bulk of the money needed for public expenditure out of thin air rather than borrowing it from the central bank or from the public , the government would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions .
This was the recommendation of the Royal Commission On Money back in 1937 .
The reason this recommendation was ignored was because there is too much vested interest behind the current set up , too many people getting rich by doing nothing .
The same people who object to the poor being paid anything for doing nothing .
If Andrew Yang decides to run for President in 2024 , he should not target Amazon but the banks .
This is already happening in other jurisdictions after a fashion , in particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking back control of its money supply from the privately owned banks , the government can save billions , and some of this money can be used to finance UBI .
UBI means just that , unconditional , it is money that is paid to every citizen as a right – including billionaires .
There is of course no reason the mega-rich should not opt out , and indeed they could be given the option of doing so on both a quarterly and an annual basis .
UBI would enable first the reduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the social security safety net .
Those few people in dire need could easily be supported by existing charities .
UBI would not only destroy make-work jobs but would create real jobs .
Bernie Sanders and his fellow travellers campaign for a minimum wage , even though this well-intentioned measure is responsible for destroying entry level and unskilled jobs thus hurting most the people its proponents claim to want to help .
With UBI , the minimum wage could be abolished , and people no employer in his right mind would employ at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work for $ 5 an hour or even $ 1 an hour to supplement their income .
After all , many people , including highly paid doctors and lawyers work pro bono in their communities out of public spiritedness .
If on the other hand UBI is not introduced , then sooner rather than later we will see the sickening phenomenon of poverty amidst plenty on an ever increasing scale .
Imagine the current situation in San Francisco , but in every city of the nation , and in every nation of @ @ @

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The solution for the funding of UBI is very simple, it should be paid out of newly created debt-free money. And when people hear this they cry instinctively “That would cause inflation”. No! Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. The people at the bottom of society: the underclass, the homeless, the unemployable, do not have too much money, some of them have no money at all. While simply printing money is no solution, and printing it without regard to the goods and services available would indeed cause inflation, printing money is relatively inexpensive, and printing it electronically literally costs nothing. The central bank does this all the time by means of a conjuring trick known as quantitative easing. The big difference is that QE involves printing this money and giving it to the clearing banks, where the bulk of it is used for speculation.
By creating the bulk of the money needed for public expenditure out of thin air rather than borrowing it from the central bank or from the public, the government would avoid paying interest, which would save billions. This was the recommendation of the Royal Commission On Money back in 1937. The reason this recommendation was ignored was because there is too much vested interest behind the current set up, too many people getting rich by doing nothing. The same people who object to the poor being paid anything for doing nothing.
If Andrew Yang decides to run for President in 2024, he should not target Amazon but the banks. This is already happening in other jurisdictions after a fashion, in particular China and more recently Mexico. By taking back control of its money supply from the privately owned banks, the government can save billions, and some of this money can be used to finance UBI. UBI means just that, unconditional, it is money that is paid to every citizen as a right – including billionaires. There is of course no reason the mega-rich should not opt out, and indeed they could be given the option of doing so on both a quarterly and an annual basis.
UBI would enable first the reduction and then the total phasing out of the social security safety net. Those few people in dire need could easily be supported by existing charities. UBI would not only destroy make-work jobs but would create real jobs. Bernie Sanders and his fellow travellers campaign for a minimum wage, even though this well-intentioned measure is responsible for destroying entry level and unskilled jobs thus hurting most the people its proponents claim to want to help. With UBI, the minimum wage could be abolished, and people no employer in his right mind would employ at $15 an hour would be free to work for $5 an hour or even $1 an hour to supplement their income. After all, many people, including highly paid doctors and lawyers work pro bono in their communities out of public spiritedness.
If on the other hand UBI is not introduced, then sooner rather than later we will see the sickening phenomenon of poverty amidst plenty on an ever increasing scale. Imagine the current situation in San Francisco, but in every city of the nation, and in every nation of the world.
Click here for Part 1.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report