In a party of political expediency principles are the enemy – Tóibín

[Peadar Tóibín answers the ambitious, un-principled and shamelessly hypocritical Varadkar with precision after he accuses Sinn Fein of “the rule of fear”  – but that’s precisely what his own Fine Gael party and their troika mentors have been ruling by this past four years. – ed]

Sinn Féin TD for Meath West Peadar Tóibín in responding to Leo Varadkar on the latest political attack on Sinn Féin has stated ‘as we move closer to the general election we see a direct correlation between the collapse in support of the government parties and the amplified hyperbole of their statements’.

Deputy Tóibín said:

“The next election is not just a choice between the opposing policy platforms of Sinn Féin and Fine Gael but also the political culture of the two parties. Fine Gael is a lose franchise of personal ambition where TDs regularly shaft and undermine each other for personal advancement. In contrast Sinn Féin is a cohesive movement focused on a shared ideological goal.”

“It’s a bit rich for Leo Varadkar to lecture Sinn Féin with regards the politics of fear. I lost the party whip 20 months ago for voting against party policy but within 6 months I was reinstated to my original position. In sharp contrast a large number of Fine Gael TDs and Senators were booted out of their party for good for voting for Fine Gael party policy. What message does this send?”

“When political expediency and personal ambition are king, political principals are the enemy. This state has been ravaged by golden circles, cliques and vested interests. The corruption of Fianna Fáil and the polarisation of Fine Gael are clear for people to see. This is why at last the political landscape in this state is radically changing.”

Source Sinn Féin Newsrom

Posted in Ireland | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adams slams Joan Burton as “architect of austerity”

Sinn Féin Leader Gerry Adams TD has launched a scathing attack on the record of the Labour Party and of its leader Joan Burton on the weekend of the Labour conference in Killarney.

Mr Adams is today addressing a large Sinn Féin gathering including TDs, Seanadoir, Councillors and party members from across the Ireland South region, in Cahir, County Tipperary.

The Sinn Féin leader has warned against the “next election campaign descending into auction politics with establishment parties seeking to outbid each other in terms of unsustainable and irresponsible tax cuts and election promises they will not keep”.

Gerry Adams said:

“We have come to expect conservative, right-wing policies from the Fine Gael party. That is their raison d’etre.

“But what of the Labour Party? The failure of Labour in Government has been stark.

“Labour continually tell us they are there to put the brakes on Fine Gael; that things would be far worse without them. But the evidence points to the opposite.

“Let’s not forget that Labour Party leader Joan Burton helped negotiate the Programme for Government.

“That programme saw Labour buy into the austerity policies of Fine Gael and deliberately break its election promises.

“Those policies have forced almost half a million of our people to flee abroad in search of work.

“As a senior Cabinet member, Joan Burton has overseen the implementation of Water Charges, the Property Tax, cuts to Child Benefit, removal of medical cards, cuts to health and welfare, and a succession of stealth taxes.

“In fact, Joan Burton is one of the chief architects of the Government’s austerity agenda.

“There is now a deep sense of betrayal among former Labour voters at the actions of that party in Government.

 “If noises emanating from Fine Gael are anything to go by, there is a real danger of the next General election campaign descending into auction politics with various parties seeking to outbid each other in terms of tax cuts.

“This will do nothing to address the serious needs of our society.

“It will not do anything to re-build our battered public services, tackle the scandal of hospital overcrowding, or build affordable childcare provision.

“There is now a need for communities, social movements, trade unions and progressive political parties to begin a real debate about the direction our country should take and the type of society we want to build.

“Such an inclusive discussion could usefully shape, in a constructive way, the nature and tenor of the next election campaign.

“I have suggested a new Citizens’ Charter, encapsulating the fundamental principles that could take us towards a citizen-centred, rights-based society.

“I believe that a Citizens’ Charter could form the basis for a new departure in Irish politics.”

Posted in Ireland | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

February 27, 2015 – Friday Webcast with Jeffrey Steinberg, Dennis Small, and Ben Deniston


MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s February 27th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly Friday night webcast here at We’ve got a full house tonight. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, also by Dennis Small from Executive Intelligence Review, and by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC “Basement” Scientific Team.

Now, those of you who have been watching our website over the course of the past three to four days, know that Mr. LaRouche has made a very significant policy intervention into the way that people have tended to think about what are the dynamics driving the situation internationally at this time. What Mr. LaRouche did, was identify what he specified as the “Zeusian” mentality which is guiding those who believe that they can wage some sort of limited war against the nations of Eurasia, such as Russia and China, which would wipe out much of the population of that territory, but which they foolishly believe that they themselves can survive. And Mr. LaRouche made a very specific point to identify this as “Zeusian”—what he called “Operation Zeus,” which is something I know will be elaborated over the course of tonight’s broadcast by all three of our guests.

But what Mr. LaRouche said was that the fallacy of the believe in so-called “limited” nuclear warfare has to be presented in very precise terms, not broad generalities; and Zeus himself must be told: “There is no way that you can survive the effects of your own genocide.”

So, Jeff, I know that you have been involved in the last 72 hours in a series of discussions with an array of leading people in both the military and the intelligence community, and you’ve been able to circulate what Mr. LaRouche has put on the table, and have received quite a few very significant responses back on this, which I’m going to give you a chance to elaborate on. But really, all of this discussion comes in the context—today, this week—of not only the visit by Andriy Parubiy, the deputy speaker of the Ukrainian Rada, who is being hosted by none other than Victoria Nuland here in Washington, D.C., to agitate for supplying lethal weapons to the Ukrainian army in order to provoke an all-out war with Russia.

But also, we’re on the eve of next week, Benjamin Netanyahu coming to Washington, who’s being hosted by John Boehner of all people, and who will most likely be agitating for his own flavor of military confrontation with Iran. So this is actually the subject of our institutional question for this evening, and I’d like to present that now, in order to give Jeff, you, a chance to share both Mr. LaRouche’s specific response on that question, as well as giving a sense overall of the much broader context of what Mr. LaRouche’s outlook on the current situation is, and the intervention that he made earlier this week.

So, the institutional question reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has questioned the judgment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his stance on Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Netanyahu has criticized the U.S. and others for “giving up” on trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. ‘The Israeli Prime Minister may not be correct,’ Mr. Kerry said after attending the latest Iran nuclear talks in Geneva. Mr. Netanyahu will address Congress next week, after an invitation by Republican leaders was criticized by the White House. So, our question for you is: What is your view of Mr. Netanyahu’s visit?”

So, Jeff, why don’t you give us Mr. LaRouche’s direct response to this question which he delivered this afternoon, as well as giving us an overall view of what Mr. LaRouche’s intervention was earlier this week.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Before we can actually get to the Netanyahu question, we’ve got to actually situate it in the larger drive for war that we’re seeing playing out on a number of different flanks internationally. We’re clearly seeing it in the case of Ukraine, where there are concerted efforts to promote the arming of the Ukrainians against Russia, which is a complete provocation and fool’s errand, because the idea of arming what is already a failed state that is infested from top to bottom with neo-Nazis from the old Bandera apparatus, typified by Andriy Parubiy, who was the leader, one of the commanders of the armed forces in the Maidan Square between November 2013 and February of 2014, when the neo-Nazi coup was carried out against the Yanukovych government.

So, what we’re looking at, is a situation that is based on a fundamental delusion. We had a lengthy discussion with Mr. LaRouche on Tuesday night, and there were follow-up discussions the next day with members of the Policy Committee, and we’ve had a lot of input, as Matt said, from leading military and political and intelligence circles in Washington.

The bottom line is this: The present British-Wall Street-centered trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt, and details of why that’s the case, and what needs to be done about it will be taken up by others later in this broadcast. But the fact of the matter is, the system is bankrupt, and there is a desperation, particularly on the part of leading circles in London and on Wall Street, to find a way out of this impossible situation, and the option that they are looking at is war—specifically, war directed against Russia and China. Not coincidentally, Russia and China are two of the most important members of the BRICS group of nations, who are in the process of forging a viable new alternative global economic system.

Now, even among the most insane elements within the British oligarchy, there is clearly a recognition that to go for an all-out war of thermonuclear extermination is not a very viable strategy for long-term survival. So, the idea of a direct thermonuclear confrontation, conflict between the major nuclear powers on this planet—principally Russia and the United States, and secondarily China—is not considered a viable option. But, at the same time, these leading circles, who are sitting on top of this thoroughly bankrupt system, have deluded themselves into the idea that somehow or other it may be possible to instigate a more limited conflict—a containable conflict that even involves the use of nuclear weapons, in which the theater of warfare is restricted to the heartland of Eurasia, to where Russia and China are in the immediate target zone, where India is in the target zone, but where you avoid the ultimate launching of a full, all-out thermonuclear conflict in which all of humanity is annihilated.

Now, the delusions behind this viewpoint are very dangerous, because in the real world, the notion that you can somehow or other have a limited war, restricted to a geographic area which will go through an overwhelming population destruction—and remember, Prince Philip, one of the leading figures within this British oligarchy, British monarchy, has committed himself to the idea that the world population should be reduced by 80%. So, you have people who are looking at means by which to potentially provoke a limited conflict, even a limited nuclear conflict, centered in Eurasia, where the United States would be largely spared from the consequences; maybe even the British Isles would be spared.

Now, in looking at the current nuclear-force posture of the United States and NATO, certain things jump out that reinforce the fact that this is in fact the delusion that certain people are working off of. In Europe right now, the United States has 180 tactical nuclear weapons deployed. They’re in secured military bases in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and also there are some in Turkey. And back during the height of the Cold War, the ostensible argument was that these weapons were available for battlefield use, should the Soviet Red Army go storming through the Fulda Gap and other points of access into NATO territory in continental Europe.

Clearly, that situation is no longer relevant, but yet, rather than following the demands of a number of European governments, including Germany, and removing those tactical nuclear weapons, because they represent a potential hair-trigger for a much larger conflict, the Obama Administration in the last year has announced that they were dedicating significant funds to the modernization of those B61 tactical nuclear weapons, and under the modernization program, these weapons are going to be substantially upgraded. They’re going to have new guidance systems that will give them a much greater degree of precision accuracy. The plan is to have a number of them available for deployment on F-35 Stealth fighter planes which are capable of deeper penetration into Russian territory, and therefore these weapons have the potential of no longer being tactical battlefield weapons, but intermediate-range weapons then could be the triggers for a much larger war.

The whole underlying assumption among these utopians, who have this view of a limited nuclear war confined to Eurasia, is that a government such as the Putin government in Russia would be willing to respond in a limited fashion to a “limited” nuclear strike. Now, Russian officials, top generals, Putin himself, have made very clear that that is emphatically not the case.

So, the danger here, is that there is a delusion among certain strategic planners in the West that somehow or other, a limited and containable nuclear confrontation is possible, directed against Russia and China, but where there can be an avoidance of an extension into full-scale global thermonuclear war.

The European theater, the centerpiece of this, is Ukraine, and the simple idea of sending lethal weapons to the current Ukrainian government, which is a failed regime dominated by a radical, small, but powerful element of literally neo-Nazis from the old Bandera apparatus. The idea of arming them and seeing this as a deterrent against further Russian actions, is another act of clinical insanity that just underscores the danger that we’re facing right now.

In the Asia-Pacific region there are similar concepts being put forward that are directed against China—in some cases ostensibly directed against North Korea, but ultimately directed against China. The U.S. is putting enormous pressure on South Korea to accept the deployment of FAAB anti-ballistic missile systems that have frankly no use against North Korea, but would be part of a system against China that could allow the United States to carry out certain limited attacks against China under the umbrella of the new military doctrine for the Asia-Pacific, which is called Air-Sea Battle. That whole concept blurs lines between conventional and nuclear weapons, and therefore represents, similarly to the situation vis-à-vis Russia, a delusion that somehow or other limited warfare can be conducted against China without it devolving into a general global strategic confrontation.

This now brings us to the question of Netanyahu. It’s well-known that Netanyahu is adamantly opposed to any kind of deal between the P5+1 countries and Iran that would allow any of Iran’s civilian nuclear power program, particularly its enrichment capability, to remain intact. And so Netanyahu is coming to Washington at the invitation of John Boehner next week, to deliver an address before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, which will occur exactly two weeks before Israeli elections. Now, there’s a very real prospect of Netanyahu losing those elections, and this stunt in Congress is intended to give him a certain boost of credibility by basically having him appear and receive standing ovations from members of the United States Congress.

In the last 48 hours, Netanyahu has also made it clear that he is once again contemplating unilateral Israeli military actions against Iran that could take place even before the completion of those P5+1 talks, and coverage in the Israeli media picked up here in the United States that represents leaks that are coming out of Netanyahu’s own office, indicate that he has the full cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which has offered to provide the Israelis with access to Saudi air space for such an attack against Iran.

This is enormously dangerous in its own right, but should be seen in the context of what I’ve just presented, as an array of provocations stretching out across virtually all of Eurasia, that are based on this delusion that somehow or other nuclear war, once it begins, can remain contained and limited to a specific geographic area.

Now, in the discussion this afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, he had some very pointed words in response to the institutional question, which I’d just read, because I think it very much puts the proper punctuation on the question about Netanyahu. What Mr. LaRouche said is the following:

He said, “Take, for example, Netanyahu. He is brutish and insane. This has gone too far, and it’s time that he is thrown out with the political garbage. Anyone with an ounce of sanity will recognize that this is not going to work. Working out a secret deal with the Saudis to launch strikes against Iran? That’s going to far. When he starts bargaining and making deals with the Saudis, then he’s gone too far. It’s time to dump this guy, and John Boehner, too. Make it a package deal. You’ve already got a number of these members of Congress announcing that they’re going to boycott, and that they’re not going to show up for Netanyahu’s speech. I’d say it’s time for Netanyahu to be dumped. And probably a lot of people in his own country would agree with me.”

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Now, as you mentioned at the beginning of your answer, when it comes to the question of the danger of war, we have to integrate this with the disintegration of the trans-Atlantic financial system, and I think in both of these, this same Zeusian mentality that we just discussed is on full display, also when it comes to this question. To quote Mr. LaRouche from earlier today:

“Doomsday is rolling in on the trans-Atlantic economy like a heavy British fog.”

Which, I think, is an extremely poetic way to describe the coming demise of the bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system. However, although this entire system is already dead, you’ve got a certain faction of those who are insane enough to believe that they can pull the plug on the majority of the populations of Europe and the trans-Atlantic region, and yet somehow they themselves can survive their own genocide, and they’ll come out on top. We saw the fallacy of that with the Dark Ages in Europe.

The point, however, is that this is impossible, and it will never happen, because what Mr. LaRouche said: There is no way that this system can survive in its present form. It’s impossible. He said that merely by their own continued adherence to their own existence, are they finishing themselves, and the problem comes when people insist on continuing to worship the myth of this dead system. What Mr. LaRouche said is that we’ve got to tell the truth. We’ve got to say: One way or another, this system is doomed, but the question is will you continue to go along with it or not?

And so I think a perfect example of this, right now, is the case of Greece. Greece knows that it cannot pay the debts that are being demanded of them, and rather than consigning itself to the graveyard of Western Europe, certain personalities inside Greece are tending to orient now towards Russia, towards China, and towards the other nations of this new viable system that’s being created by the BRICS. And this is the perfect counterpoint, and Mr. LaRouche said, we need to compare the viability of the emerging system around the BRICS, with the absolute death of the unsalvageable system that now is dominating the trans-Atlantic. So, I’d like to invite Dennis Small to come to the podium, to elaborate a little bit more on what Mr. LaRouche had to say on this subject, earlier today.

DENNIS SMALL: He said that they’re bankrupt. They’re completely, totally, absolutely, irremediably bankrupt. And the problem is exactly as with the case of the insane thinking around the idea of launching somehow, limited tactical nuclear warfare, is that a similar lack of reality permeates the thinking, with regard to economic policy in these same British imperial financial circles. And the problem here, again, as with the issue of warfare, as you were just indicating, Matt, is that people give credibility to that insanity as if it had some actual substance, and the issue of stupidity of the majority of the population — stupidity in the sense of not recognizing what’s going on before their very eyes — becomes a strategic factor in and of itself. And therefore the importance of what Mr. LaRouche launched in terms of simply stating the facts around the limited thermonuclear warfare policy, as Jeff was just describing, becomes itself a strategic factor to alter that situation. So Mr. LaRouche’s intervention with regard to that situation is the leading factor changing that situation, even as we stand here and discuss this. And I think that was the idea that guided his discussions with us today as well, to carry this issue forward.

Now on the question of Greece and the financial situation, it is very much the fact that the British would like to believe, and would like you to believe, that they can get away with obliterating the BRICS — which after all is only half of humanity, so what’s the big deal? — wipe them off the face of the Earth, and any country that is either formally thinking of joining the BRICS, or is de facto strategically moving in that same direction. And that emphatically includes Greece. Brazil is targetted, is already in the middle of a de facto coup d’état attempt against the President of Brazil — part of the BRICS. Argentina, the same. Egypt, the same. Russia and China, goes without saying. And in the case of Greece, we’re seeing that that is what the actual battle lines are in this situation.

Now Mr. LaRouche was very pointed on this issue, as he was on all the topics we discussed, on the question of the bankruptcy of the system, and he said look, Greece is going to be the real trigger in this situation, because they have no option whatsoever. They don’t have to honor in any way, that which they do not owe. The advantage that they have, is that they are going to leave the euro — and they have no choice about it! Germany can yell and scream, the Finance Minister of Germany Schäuble, can make a big show of it, and stomp and throw fits about it, but the fact of the matter is, even if the Germans pushed them out, when they leave, the entire European trans-Atlantic system will collapse.

Mr. LaRouche said that Wall Street as well as the related system in the trans-Atlantic area will come tumbling down, and it will be a sweeping financial collapse, and it will come on like a torrent, an unstoppable torrent. And he said, just because it hasn’t happened yet, people will tend to assume that it will not happen. But it will, he said. And it will have a chain-reaction effect on the entire euro system. And the present management of that system will disintegrate.

So he said, the lesson of the Greek situation is that these guys are simply doomed. They cannot pay, and they won’t. And that’s all that there is to it. There is no way in the universe, that this system can survive. And he said the German Finance Minister Schäuble is out of his mind to try to defend this thing, and that anyone who is committing themselves to a system which is already doomed, is clinically insane. There is no one who can win that game. Just as there is no one who can win the game of so-called tactical limited thermonuclear warfare. So, either the people who are doing this and promoting it are stupid, or senile, if they believe that they can. So the whole system is hopelessly bankrupt, and it has been so for a very long time, and Mr. LaRouche has pointed to that for a very long time. We’ve known that to be the case. Now, it’s in its death knell, so let us sound it.

Now, with that actual description of what the strategic situation is, let’s look at the events of the week, which is that a kind of ceasefire was declared or signed in Greece this week, much like the ceasefire in Ukraine — which is fine, they stopped shooting, that’s very good. But none of the underlying problems were solved, and as a matter of fact, they’re worsened by the visits of these Nazis under the control of Nuland, to try to come get arms in the United States. In the case of Greece, a kind of ceasefire was signed between the Greek government and the EU. Greece asked for a four-month extension — not of their program with the Troika, but only of the ECB lending into the Greek financial system and banking system, so that they would have the liquidity to not, at this point, have to break and leave, while they are perhaps preparing other options. And otherwise the letter of understanding, or the program which the Greeks presented, did not address, and didn’t even discuss what everybody knows is the underlying issue, which is the debt.

Greece’s debt is completely, totally unpayable. Furthermore, it’s a fraud — they don’t owe it, because they have already paid it two, three, four times over, through the specific mechanisms of looting which characterize this financial system. The financial system, after Greece has paid this off numerous times, through various forms of looting — derivatives dealing, altering the terms of trade, bailout of the banks that they never see — now says that Greece owes EU320 billion. But the best calculations of experts, who actually are on the creditors’ side in this, in the case of Greece, calculate that at most, they owe 10% of that, like some EU30 billion, that’s all.

Exemplary of how this worked, over two bailout packages, over the course of two or three years, Greece (quote/unquote) “was given” EU245 billion in bailout money, of with 3% stayed in Greece for spending by the Greek government. The rest went right out, immediately, to the creditor banks. On top of that, you have a very indicative kind of fraud that’s going on, which that the ECB, the European Central Bank, which is the source of liquidity into the Greek system under the rules of the euro, purchased Greek government bonds at 40% of face value, because they were deeply discounted because everyone was saying Greece was going bankrupt, when it was actually their creditor banks that were going bankrupt; so they bought them at 40%, and then turned around to demand that Greece pay 100% on them. Now, if this reminds you of what the vulture-funds are trying to do to Argentina, it should! The ECB is simply a gigantic vulture-fund. Except they’re not quite as clever and as aggressive as Elliott Management, which purchased its bonds at 3 or 5% and is demanding 100%, the ECB seems to be a little bit new to the business, so they’re only going to make a killing of two-and-a-half times what they invested initially. But they’re being denounced as such by members of the Parliament, members of the European Parliament from Greece, like Member of the European Parliament Notis Marias, in an interview with the Executive Intelligence Review, who documented exactly this looting operation.

Furthermore, the Parliament of Greece has decided that they are going to audit the debt with regard to its legitimacy — which is a very good step towards simply saying, “Go jump in the lake.” The purpose of auditing the debt, is to not pay that which is illegitimate. And in the case of Ecuador, which is the only country in the world that’s actually carried out an audit of its debt, officially, what they found when they went through this with a fine-tooth comb, is that of course they had paid their debt many times over, and therefore, they did declare — this was back a couple of years ago — a partial debt moratorium. In the case of Greece, they can’t pay in any event, and everybody knows they can’t pay, so the only question is, when does the chessboard actually get kicked over?

As a result of this looting process, the Greek economy has been transformed into a rubble-field. There is 60% youth unemployment in Greece today, perhaps more; and as this slide which you can see on your screen indicates, every other major aspect of the Greek economy has been turned into a success story for the IMF and the Troika: poverty, over the last four years has risen by 30%; homelessness, by 25%; suicides up by 27%; prostitution, up by 150%—that probably includes the finance ministers of the previous governments, that would be my estimate. And what’s happened is that the population is simply being decimated. The total population has dropped, the birth rate has dropped, you have a depopulation policy going on of exactly the sort that Jeff was describing earlier as the global policy of Prince Philip and the WWF and the British Empire in general.

Now, incidentally, Ukraine is also being completely wrecked by similar policies. You have a situation now where the Nazis in the government of Kiev have announced that they are cutting off gas supplies to eastern Ukraine, because they are rebellion against the Kiev policies. Now, it’s the dead of winter there! Ukraine can be very cold! And this policy is nothing but genocide. And in fact, that is precisely the word that was used by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, to describe what was going on there, a characterization which Mr. LaRouche said was calculated and absolutely correct.

Now, what’s going on in the Greek government? Well, there’s a lot of discussion going on, and most of it is not being covered in the media. But, for example, the Finance Minister of Greece, Varoufakis, after this ceasefire was signed, which leaves all of the major issues technically unresolved, announced the following. He said, “We will not have liquidity problems for the public sector workers” in other words we are going to be able to pay the public sector workers; “but we will definitely have problems in making debts payments to the IMF now, and to the ECB in July.” In other words, their priority is to keep people alive and not pay the debt. That’s one of the statements which has driven Draghi at the European Central Bank, and Schäuble and others in Germany, completely up the wall — “the Greeks can’t be trusted.”

Now, there was a very fascinating exchange, on television in Greece, which I think gives a window into the actual issue of what’s being discussed there, and this was a discussion between Prime Minister Tsipras, and one of the iconic figures of modern Greek history Mikis Theodorakis, a musician, a leader of the resistance fight in Greece, and a major opposition figure against the IMF policies, who had voiced some doubts or concerns, lest the negotiations with the EU turn into Greece falling into the “spider web of the EU” was how he described it.

So when these two gentlemen met, before they went into their closed-door meeting, they had a brief exchange before the cameras, and Theodorakis said to Tsipras: ” Have the strength to say no to the German nein. We will discuss it. It is more feasible than ever, we are very close.” To which Tsipras responded, “This needs a good strategy. We’ll discuss it in detail.”

Now the reference of Theodorakis, that “this is the moment, it is feasible, we are very close,” is in fact, very suggestive of what the real options are, and I was actually rather strongly reminded by his formulation of “have the strength to say no,” of the famous discussion between Posa and Don Carlos’s father who was then the king of Spain, in the Schiller play [Don Carlos], where Posa says to the King, “Be a king among a thousand kings,” to try to get him to change and go in the right direction.

Now, I think what’s interesting in the formulation of Theodorakis in this thing, recognizing the moment; Tsipras has clearly shown some significant leadership in this situation up to this point, and the circumstances are such that this thing can, in fact, only go in one direction. Now, what is that direction? Mr. LaRouche made the point in the following way: He said, “The only thing you can do, is replace the bankrupt system with a non-bankrupt system, and anyone who’s intelligent or sane, knows that it’s time to move your economy out of the graveyard and find a new address. The Greeks are doing this: They’re establishing close ties with Russia, which China, with other viable nations, and as a result, a great rejuvenation will occur very soon. Greece will return to its legacy as a great maritime power,” Mr. LaRouche said. And what is waiting out there to replace this system? The BRICS system: This is actually viable. This has viability to exist. He said: Compare the trans-Atlantic system and the genocide there with what the BRICS nations are doing. What is happening in Asia has viability, and therefore, this system will be replaced. This is already in motion.

Now, one of the things that was in motion this week is the fact that two of the BRICS nations this week formally approved the charter of the New Development Bank which the BRICS established in principle back in July in Brazil, July of last year. Russia and India approved this in their parliament in the first case in the upper and lower house, and the India cabinet in the other case; China is not a problem on this thing; South Africa has it before its parliament, and the Brazilians are moving it to their Senate soon. So we’re at a point where the New Development Bank of the BRICS is about to come into existence with merely $100 billion in capitalization, almost nothing — as compared to the $2 quadrillion of the bankrupt, failing trans-Atlantic system. And many people will ask: how is it possible that something that has a nominal value which is 10,000 times less than this huge, gigantic financial system, who could this actually be the germ of an entirely new system? And this I think actually brings us to the fundamental issue that Mr. LaRouche was talking about with the Zeus principle. Because the two systems are incommensurable. The $100 billion, this very small new system which is being created, very small in numerical terms, actually represents a power to transform the physical universe, that is no there with $2 quadrillion in derivatives, $4 quadrillion in derivatives, or $4 trillion quadrillion in derivatives! It’s the power to physically transform the universe, to deploy a capability of increased energy-flux density, to provide mankind with the creativity and the creative tools, the fire, which Zeus would deny mankind, as in the Prometheus issue, that’s what is actually behind this otherwise very small $100 billion capitalization.

So you’re sort of talking about something like the transmission in the biosphere, from reptiles to mammals, where you had just a few, little small, very small mammals that started appearing, and you had these gigantic dinosaurs around all over the place. And the dinosaurs, like the British Empire today, were Zeusian, and the outlook was Zeusian. And therefore, what we have to deploy, is a contrary principle of the physical universe. It is not a question of muscle power, Mr. LaRouche says, that moves history. You won’t overwhelm the enemy with numbers or war; it’s not a mechanical policy or a numbers game. It’s a question of unleashing that which is unique to the species, which is a power to transform the physical universe, which is now being destroyed, willy-nilly, under the policies of Zeus.

OGDEN: Thank you, Dennis. Just to underscore the point, what Mr. LaRouche was stressing is, look, this system is doomed, and you just have to tell the truth about that. It’s like the walking dead. And it’s not a matter of whether they make some mistake or not. This system is inherently doomed, because it cannot physically continue to exist, and he said we’re now experiencing the fall of Zeus, which is something which Prometheus portended. And as Dennis just mentioned, I just want to repeat this point, Mr. LaRouche was stressing to us, as a meeting of those who have taken responsibility, to act on history at this moment, that history is not a mechanical process. It’s not a matter of muscle power. Your power to act on history is not determined by the numbers of people who agree with you, or the popularity of your opinions or something like this. He made the point that it’s higher processes which are ordering history, and it’s only if you understand that, that one is qualified to make policy or to provide leadership. And in that regard, he highlighted the role of Nicholas of Cusa, who was sort of the founding father of the Renaissance at the time that European civilization had destroyed itself through its embrace of a Zeusian oligarchical system.

And this is very much where we find ourselves, obviously, today. And what Mr. LaRouche was saying is, a sweeping change is needed, at a time when everything is falling apart, when everything is going wrong, when the other thing that they have to offer, is dark age and war, what you need is a Nicholas of Cusa, who obviously himself was a quite Promethean figure.

And when we look at our own responsibility, our job is not to explain or try to describe the mechanics of how history is moving, but that we ourselves have to be the cause of that movement, and to create the future. And I’m going to read one other, rather poetic passage from what Mr. LaRouche had to say today. He said, “We must recognize the winds and the tides of history. Don’t get stubborn and try to resist. Set your sails accordingly, choose your voyage, chart your course, ensure that you’ve picked the right mission and direction, and set sail. China’s doing this, others are doing this. there are whole areas of the world that are doing this. We’ve got to realize that our job is to make history move. Don’t try to explain why history is moving, be the cause of its movement, and create the future.”

And ironically, I think this is what set Johannes Kepler apart from his contemporaries, his rivals, that while they were preoccupied with trying to observe and explain how the planets were moving, Kepler was interested in discovering the cause of their motion. So maybe with that said, I’d like to ask Ben, how do we have to think in order to be the movers of history today?

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Well, that’s a pretty tall order. I’d like to refer back to set this up to some of what Mr. LaRouche had to say earlier in the week, in setting the context for a whole process of intervention that he’s laid out in the past five or six days.

On Wednesday, in a discussion with his Policy Committee, he had some particular remarks about getting a more precise strategic assessment of the war danger, I want to pull from just some of the concluding points of his remarks on Wednesday, which we published on the LaRouche PAC website on Thursday. He said: “…what would make sense, is what was done with Zeus, a Zeusian kind of thing, where a very extensive destruction of large areas of the planet Earth would be affected, and it would be really a long time before anybody really moved things up and started to build a civilization again.”

And Mr. LaRouche went on, he said: “This is what we’re talking about; this is strategy. This is what I’m talking about. We need a new Renaissance now, a serious Renaissance. We understand how the human species behaves; we understand its evils as well as its good potential, and we must make an instrument which will do what has to be done, to prevent a mass killing of the human population. And to create a new kind of organization, a new kind of Renaissance, in the sense of Nicholas of Cusa’s Renaissance. … That’s what we must do. We’re getting indications that such potentials exist. They may be faint on the horizon, but they exist. And if we do our job properly, we can call a halt to the genocide.”

And a little bit later, Mr. LaRouche went on and he said, “Nicholas of Cusa’s work was in that direction, along with others in the Renaissance. And that’s the way we have to approach it. You have to take the principle of the Renaissance. You have to look at the idea of the Renaissance, from the standpoint of the long wait of Europe to become free of the Zeus atrocity.”

So those were excerpted from Mr. LaRouche’s remarks on Wednesday. And in our meeting with him earlier today, emphasized that he wanted this issue included in the discussion tonight. So I think it’s important to start by emphasizing why it was that Zeus went after Prometheus. What specifically drove Zeus to chain and torture Prometheus?

Now, as the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus tells us, at least from what’s available of his works to us today, Prometheus dared to bring fire, which was supposed to be just the knowledge of the gods, he dared to bring fire to the common people, to the mortals. As Aeschylus has Prometheus recount, he saw mankind under the tyranny of Zeus in a pathetic and depraved state, as Aeschylus has Prometheus say in his play, regarding the mortals of the time:

“Though they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail; they had ears, but they did not understand; but, just as shapes in dreams, throughout their lengths of days, without purpose they wrought all things in confusion. They had neither knowledge of houses built of bricks and turned to face the Sun, nor yet of work in wood; but dwelt beneath the ground like swarming ants, in sunless caves. They had no sign either of winter or of flowery spring or of fruitful summer, on which they could depend, but managed everything without judgment….”

So this was the state of mankind under Zeus, and Prometheus, betraying Zeus’s policy, intervened. Prometheus is best known for having brought fire to mankind, but what else does that mean? According to Aeschylus, he brought hope to mankind: He taught them astronomy, he taught them about the seasons, and agriculture; numbers, language, arts, medicine and metallurgy. As Aeschylus writes, “Hear the sum of the whole matter in the compass of one brief word — every art possessed by man comes from Prometheus.”

So it was for this action, this violation of Zeus’s policy towards mankind, that Zeus sought to imprison and torture Prometheus. And as Mr. LaRouche has often stressed, this is not a tale of some struggle from long ago, to be recounted by historians or academics. This expresses the principle of a governing characteristic which has plagued Western civilization from the time of Prometheus up to this very moment.

So what does Prometheus show us? Well, man is not a beast. Man inherently is not just another animal species. What we see in Prometheus is that it’s the actions of Zeus, the active intervention of the Zeusian system which condemns populations to this type of bestiality. And Prometheus dared to violate Zeus’s system, and it was not simply just by giving things to mankind. It wasn’t simply an act of charity, maybe the way people think about charity, but it was by allowing mankind to rise to the potential already inherent in mankind. That’s what Prometheus was able to do.

And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized this week, in the quotes I read at the beginning, this became even clearer in the Renaissance with the work of Cusa, and with the continuation of Cusa’s work with Kepler. Again, mankind is not inherently a Zeusian species, even if Zeus has tended to dominate for long periods of time. Mankind, unlike any animal species, despite the desires of Zeus, has this unique power, to act to change his relationship to the universe, as Kepler demonstrated in his work.

Kepler discovered the principle organizing the entire Solar System, and he did so in a method which he, at a certain point in his life, developed and defined as his conception, his principle of harmonics, his principle of universal harmonics, harmony. And that is how he discovered the Solar System. For example, I think to help illustrate and understand this, the fact of the matter is the results of Kepler’s discovery, are simply not at all possible to be derived from sense-perceptual interpretations of the universe. The results of Kepler’s discovery are completely inconsistent with anything that man could derive simply from his sense-perception alone.

That Kepler, following Cusa, had already recognized that the fundamental principles of the organization of the universe were not accessible to mankind through the senses, nor from any types of interpretations or developments based upon conceptions derived from sense-perceptions. This being the case, yet, mankind still demonstrates a certain unique quality of progress.

So what, then, if not sense-perception, is the basis for mankind’s demonstrated ability to scientifically progress? Now, as Kepler demonstrated, and also very explicitly discussed, when he spoke of his work in his discoveries, and the work leading into his discoveries, the subject of science, really is the study of the unique characteristics and powers of the human mind, specifically. That Kepler, very explicitly following Cusa, looked directly to the nature of the human mind and human creativity, because it’s the human mind which can perform actions which can uniquely enable mankind to understand and operate upon the fundamental principles organizing the universe. It comes from the human mind alone, as far as we know.

So if we really want to more truthfully understand both the nature of mankind and the nature of the universe of which mankind is a part, we really have to change what most people today think of when they hear the term “science.” I think we can phrase this in a question, as follows. We can ask, “What is the universe, such that the non-sense-perceptual powers unique to the human mind alone have the potential to bring mankind into greater coherence with the organizing principles of that universe?” I think that’s the type of question Kepler asked, Cusa asked, and we have to again ask today, and seek further insights into.

And I want to read that formulation again. We have to ask: ” What is the universe, such that the non-sense-perceptual powers unique to the human mind alone have the potential to bring mankind into greater coherence with the organizing principles of that universe?” And this was Kepler’s conception of universal harmonies, as he discussed in his Harmonies of the World. This was Kepler’s basis for his discovery of the principle of the Solar System, both in what he actually did, what he actually demonstrated in his life’s work, and in how he correctly thought and wrote explicitly about his own work, and seeing his own work in a continuation of the work of Cusa.

So the point is, this is a principle that really Zeus, or followers of Zeus, or believers in the Zeusian system, can’t really understand directly. I think the issue is that the fundamental nature which defines the Zeusian system or followers of this oligarchical ideology, that which makes Zeus, Zeus, is that which denies this very principle, this very Promethean principle.

So I think what’s being put before you, the audience here today, by the entire discussion, is that we’re at the historical time when we must rid society of this Zeus phenomenon as understood by Aeschylus, as expressed in the fight that Prometheus waged, and is being expressed today in its new form. It is recognized that the reality is that we cannot have general warfare today, in the age of thermonuclear weapons. That is something that society has been realizing and struggling with for the last decades, that new reality. But I think Mr. LaRouche also recognizes that fact as the expression, the product of a deeper issue, which is that we can no longer have a Zeusian system, a Zeusian social structure in a thermonuclear age; that we can no longer allow mankind to be denied access to understanding his true, Keplerian nature, the true Keplerian nature of his existence, as Zeus had attempted to deny fire to early mankind.

I think the broader issue is that mankind has to come to understand and embrace this unique capability specific to the human mind, that alone defining both the basis of mankind’s existence and also defining the basis for mankind’s understanding of the Solar System for science. And in doing that, there’s an incredible amount of work to do: We have an entire Solar System to develop and explore, as Mr. LaRouche is emphatic, we’re seeing China orienting in this direction right now. We have an entire galactic system to understand, which makes our Solar System look rather tiny in comparison. So these are the types of challenges we need to be looking forward to addressing, in frankly an excited fashion. So I think the message is clear through all of this, the time has come to get rid of Zeus, and get on with the progress of mankind.

OGDEN: Thank you, Ben. And with that, I’m going to bring a conclusion to tonight’s broadcast. I’d like to not only thank Ben, but also thank Jeff and Dennis for joining us here, tonight, and thank you for tuning in. Please stay tuned to Good night.

Posted in Friday Webcast | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Sinn Féin victory in Carlow/Kilkenny will signal the end of this Government – Kathleen Funchion

Sinn Féin candidate for the upcoming by election in Carlow & Kilkenny Kathleen Funchion has stated that a victory for Sinn Féin in the constituency will signal the end for the Fine Gael and Labour Party Government.

Councillor Funchion was speaking to a crowd of over three hundred activists and supporters at the launch of her campaign in the Newpark Hotel tonight.

Sinn Féin Leader Gerry Adams TD, Deputy Leader Mary Lou McDonald TD and Finance Spokesperson Pearse Doherty TD were all on hand to rally support for the party’s effort to win another seat in the Dáil.

Councillor Funchion said;

“Let’s make no mistake about it; a victory for Sinn Féin in Carlow and Kilkenny will signal the end of this failed and detached government.

“This is because Sinn Féin is the real opposition to this government.

“A victory for Fine Gael will prolong the term of this government and prolong the suffering of lower and middle income families in this constituency and across the country.

“A victory for Fianna Fáil will have little impact on this government because they are only implementing the same policies that Fianna Fáil were advocating when they were booted out of office four years ago.

“I believe that the people of Carlow & Kilkenny will seize this opportunity and deliver a knockout blow to a government that has lost its mandate through a litany of broken promises, devastating cuts and a failure to deliver the type of “democratic revolution” that Enda Kenny talked about in 2011.

“I know that everyone here wants a brighter future for themselves, their children, their grandchildren. That is what I want to see – a brighter future for Carlow & Kilkenny and a brighter future for our country.


Full text of Kathleen Funchion’s speech follows:

Just over 5 years ago a person sitting in this very room took a step that helped bring to an end one of the most disastrous governments this state has ever seen.

Pearse Doherty’s successful high court challenge against the then Fianna Fáil government for delaying the holding of a By Election in Donegal South West and his subsequent victory was the final nail in the coffin to the Fianna Fáil government that wrecked the economy.

Thanks to Pearse Doherty’s efforts no longer will unpopular governments be able to deny people their democratic right to full representation in the Dáil. We owe Pearse a debt of gratitude for the stance he took.

Thanks to his efforts, in just 3 months’ time, the people of Carlow and Kilkenny will have the same opportunity as the people of Donegal had in 2010.

The opportunity to signal the end for this government.

Let’s make no mistake about it; a victory for Sinn Féin here is the only result that will do this because Sinn Féin is the real opposition to this government.

A victory for Fine Gael will prolong the term of this government and prolong the suffering of lower and middle income families in this constituency and across the country.

a victory for Fianna Fáil will have little impact on this government because this government is only implementing the same policies that Fianna Fáil were advocating when they were booted out of office 4 years ago.

I believe that the people of Carlow & Kilkenny will seize this opportunity and deliver a knockout blow to a government that has lost its mandate through a litany of broken promises, devastating cuts and a failure to deliver the type of “democratic revolution” that Enda Kenny talked about 4 years ago.

But like in all elections people will be given a clear choice.

A choice, between more of the same, the FF, FG and Labour cohort, the nodding dogs for the government, who have all been a part of implementing devastating cuts and unfair taxes on families and communities here in Carlow and Kilkenny: The alternative Choice a party and a representative who will not be afraid to stand up for this constituency and send a powerful message to the establishment.

That message is simple. People have had enough. Enough of broken promises, enough of cronyism, enough of the nod and wink, enough of austerity.

I know that people have lost trust in our political system and in politicians, there are many people who think, what’s the point in voting at all, ye are all the same anyway? And who can blame people for thinking this way?

When you look at who has represented us in government over the past number of years I can understand why people feel like this but Sinn Féin IS different and we are NOT in the business of making empty election promises that we cannot keep.

We are in the business of change. We are in the business of progressive and fair policies. We will build a fair recovery, not a recovery for the wealthy elites.

We will ensure that the voices of ordinary working people are represented.

We have a dynamic team of SF TDs in the Dáil, who are not afraid to ask the difficult questions or hold the government to account.

I want to be part of that team; I want to bring the issues in this constituency to the floor of the Dáil and to make sure that the voices of all the people of Carlow and Kilkenny are heard, not just the voices of those who are well con-nected or those who are well protected.

Everyone in this room knows what the issues are that face this constituency. They are largely the same throughout the length and breadth of our country. Housing and homelessness have reached crisis point here in Kilkenny city, in the Aspect hotel, not far from here there are currently over 20 families, all with children, that are calling that hotel home.

How can this be right or fair or just?

Unemployment is a massive issue in both our counties, Braun, L’apple, the sugar factory, all closed their doors in Carlow in the last 10 years and we have had nothing to replace them. Instead of tackling the unemployment problem by creating real and sustainable jobs, the government has opted for schemes such as gateway and job-bridge.

Schemes that are little more than slave labour, where there is very little if any chance of full time work afterwards.

But Sinn Féin isn’t in the business of just opposing unjust policies. We offer real, practical and fully costed alternatives. Just last week we launched an internship scheme that supports jobseekers to attain real quality jobs. Also last week our proposed legislation Jakes Law will make our estates a safer place for our children to play in. These are the proposals that Sinn Féin would seek to introduce in government.

Our proposals will ensure a living wage for all workers.

Our proposals will support Rural communities which have been devastated by continuous cuts, garda stations have closed under the watch of both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, our post offices and bus services have all been under attack over the past number of years with many small villages and towns being left like ghost towns, without public transport despite what our Taoiseach tried to tell us last weekend!

Our proposals will show Farmers that Sinn Féin is a party that will really fight their corner and puts more emphasis on the indigenous rural economy.

By electing me to Leinster House for Carlow Kilkenny in May; you are electing someone who knows what it is to struggle to make life work.

Someone who will be a voice for working people who are struggling with the burden of new taxes that this government has forced on them.

Because I will be a voice for people who go out to work every day, rushing around in the morning, trying to get kids out the door while worrying about bills, and thinking will I try pay the gas or electricity this week?

A voice for mothers who struggle with the cost of childcare.

A voice for families that are burdened by mortgages.

I want to be a voice for the people of rural Ireland who are discriminated against because of where they live.

These are all ordinary people, people like you in this room, people like myself.

So on the 22nd May, the people of Carlow and Kilkenny have a chance to make history. However History is not made by chance but by choice, your choice; that’s a choice between the stale and failed politics of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour or the politics of change and equality.

I know that everyone here wants a brighter future for themselves, their children, their grandchildren. That is what I want to see. A brighter future for Carlow & Kilkenny. A brighter future for our country. History is made by the actions of people, People like you in this room. It is you that has to be a part of creating a brighter future for all our people.  It is you that will elect a Sinn Féin TD for Carlow – Kilkenny and therefore signal the end for this government. It is you that will make history by voting for Sinn Fein. The ability, the will, and the drive is here in this room all we have to do now is to go out and do it.

Ar Aghaidh Linn!

Source: Sinn Féin Newsroom

Posted in Ireland | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama, Nuland and Parubiy Push Eurasian War

Euromaidan fascist commander Andriy Parubiy, now the deputy speaker of the Ukraine Supreme Rada, made the rounds in Washington this week, meeting with Victoria Nuland, John McCain, and John Boehner, and pressing for the US to provide weapons to the Kiev regime. The push for weapons by hardcore Ukrainian Banderists (Parubiy was a co-founder in 1991 of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine)  to fight Russia, is the immediate flash-point for strategic confrontation in the heart of Eurasia. Parubiy was joined in Washington on Thursday by former Georgian President Saakashvili, who is a strategic advisor to the Poroshenko/Yatsenyuk government in Kiev. The full court press for war with Russia is on!

Lyndon LaRouche warned on Thursday that the actions of Obama, Nuland, Parubiy, and others represent the potential trigger for the outbreak of a war that can lead to the destruction of mankind.

While, as Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized in dialogue with colleagues over the past 72 hours, even the most fanatical of the British war party are not consciously out to trigger a war of extinction of mankind—a full-throttle global strategic thermonuclear confrontation between the United States and NATO on one side, and Russia and China on the other—they do believe that a “limited” war, even a “limited nuclear war” can be localized in the heartland of Eurasia, targeted at the Russia and China core of the BRICS nations. It is this population of the Eurasian heartland that the British and their Wall Street and Obama Administration allies have targeted for a mass kill.

The drive for such a “limited” nuclear war is moving ahead against both Russia and China. A survey of the past months reveals that there is an intense battle underway, behind the scenes, within the NATO trans-Atlantic system, over the deployment of a new generation of “limited nuclear weapons” in both Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region. Leading critics of the scheme in the US and Germany have raised the roof over the planned modernization of the US arsenal of 180 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, the B-61. Under the Obama Administration’s nuclear modernization plans, the new generation of B-61 tactical nuclear weapons will be more accurate, with longer range, capable of hitting sites deep inside Russia.

In the Asia-Pacific region, Air Sea Battle, the Obama Administration’s war plan against China, similarly blurs the lines between nuclear and conventional warfare, by claiming the right to launch pre-emptive strikes against Chinese mainland critical security infrastructure.  At the same time, Obama is pressing South Korea to accept the deployment of US missile defense systems, ostensibly against North Korea, that are actually more suited to the ASB targeting of China.

This desperate drive for war, including the utopian delusion about the possibility of “limited” nuclear confrontation in Eurasia, is ultimately driven by the fact that the British system of monetarist looting of nations has reached the end of the line. The Greek elections have accelerated the showdown over the bankruptcy of all of the trans-Atlantic too-big-to-fail banks, the ECB and the entire Eurozone system.  There is only one solution, LaRouche emphasized today:  Return to national sovereignty, end the Euro experiment, through an orderly Glass- Steagall reorganization and return to sovereign currencies.  The gambling debt is both illegal and unpayable.  Greece owes nothing to the Troika.

It is this reality, and the further reality of the BRICS alternative, that is driving the British to the edge, where they are pushing limited thermonuclear confrontation in Eurasia.

That is the danger of allowing the British puppets, Barack Obama, Victoria Nuland, and the rest, to remain in power.  Fire Nuland and move to remove Obama from office and the nuclear danger is gone. Sit back and allow them to continue on their current path, and the war that will come will not be limited to Eurasia.  It will be a global war of annihilation.


Intensive Trans-Atlantic Debate Over U.S. Tactical Nukes in Europe

In line with Lyndon LaRouche’s past 48 hours’ discussion about the danger of limited nuclear war targeted against Russia and China, and contained within the Eurasian region, a fierce debate has been underway among nuclear weapon and disarmament specialists on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the aftermath of an Obama Administration decision in mid-2013 to allocate significant defense funds to the modernization of America’s nuclear triad, including the modernization of its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, increasing calls have been issued for the U.S. to withdraw all of its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, because they represent a dangerous and counter-productive use of limited defense dollars.

The U.S. is upgrading the existing B-12 tactical nuclear weapons in a way that increases their range and their accuracy, blurring the lines between nuclear and conventional weapons, and violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, which bars the deployment of such weapons in Europe. By adding “tail kits” to the existing B-12 tactical nuclear weapons, the accuracy of the weapons is greatly enhanced, making it possible to reduce the mega-tonnage of the nuclear explosives. The plans to deploy the new B-61-12 tactical nukes on the F-35 stealth fighters, due to be deployed to Europe in the coming years, means that the smaller-scale nuclear warheads can be launched against targets deep inside Russia.

All of this, critics have been warning, increases the possibility of a limited nuclear war being launched, which, they argue, will lead inevitably to an escalation to full-scale nuclear confrontation at the level of annihilation.

In the July/August 2014 issue of the CFR’s Foreign Affairs journal, Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh wrote “Bombs Away—The Case for Phasing Out U.S. Tactical Nukes in Europe.” A similar argument, detailing the modernization of the B-61s, was presented Nov. 6, 2013 in Spiegel Online by Markus Becker, who recently wrote of the increased dangers of nuclear war coming from the Ukraine crisis. Becker’s piece was headlined “Nuclear Arsenal: U.S. to Turn Old Bombs into All-Purpose Weapons.”

Hans Kristensen, of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), has been writing warnings about the tendency to push for limited nuclear war in the European and Eurasian theater for the past several years, most recently in a Sept. 3, 2014 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists under the title “Why NATO should eliminate its tactical nukes, despite Russian belligerence.” He was the author of a comprehensive review of the U.S. and NATO tactical and short-range nuclear weapons arsenals around the globe for the FAS in May 2012, titled “Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons.” In the study, he warned that such new weapons systems create a greater danger of the outbreak of nuclear war.

Germany, among other European nations, has been calling for the U.S. to withdraw all tactical nukes from Europe. There are currently 180 U.S. tactical nuclear bombs in NATO countries—Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, and Turkey. All of these are older versions of the B-61, which will replaced in the next years with the new versions, which effectively convert them into intermediate-range nuclear weapons.

While there have been few unclassified papers explicitly arguing for the viability of limited nuclear war against Russia and/or China in the Eurasian theater, the decision to go ahead with the “modernization fix” of the B-61 and the Obama decision to allocate $335 billion over the next decade for modernization of the U.S. thermonuclear arsenal, sufficiently makes the point.

Paul Craig Roberts Again Cites Matlock’s Warning: The U.S. Is Provoking Russia to War

Former Reagan Administration official and current national syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts pens an unusual, third-consecutive-day column on the war danger, which again, as the day before, cites Executive Intelligence Review’s coverage of former Russian Ambassador Jack Matlock’s Feb. 11 remarks in Washington D.C. This time Roberts cites on Matlock’s speech in his first paragraph.

Roberts’s column, titled, “Washington Has Destroyed Trust Between Nuclear Powers, Thus Raising The Specter Of War,” Roberts says Reagan’s successors have done

“a thorough job of destroying this trust. In the last two years the destruction of trust has been total.”

On February 24, Roberts attacked Alexander J. Motyl and the Council on Foreign Relations’ February 5 publication of a

“large collection of blatant lies… I observed that the publication of ignorant nonsense in what is supposed to be a respectable foreign policy journal indicated the degradation of the Western political and media elite. I did not think things could get any worse, but one day later I came across Andrew S. Weiss’ article in the Wall Street Journal. Weiss’ article is the most amazing collection of misrepresentations imaginable. It is impossible to believe that the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment could possible be so totally misinformed. The false reality that Weiss creates precludes any diplomatic resolution of the conflict that Washington has created with Russia.”

Roberts says it reminds him of the confession of Udo Ulfkotte, an editor at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in the 1960s, that he published under his name articles handed to him by the CIA and that the entire European press does the same. “Was Weiss handed the disinformation by the CIA, or by Victoria Nuland,” or, says Roberts, is he just another of the former NSC, State Department, or DOD “propaganda operatives currently operating out of a think-tank?”

Posted in Stopping WW III, Ukraine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dirty Money Laundry at HSBC: A Parody

By Bill Ferguson

Here at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank
We serve the Queen and those of peerage rank,
Got billions of pounds, and opprobrium,
For the financing of Royal trade in opium.

For the financing of Royal trade in opium!

We finance all that traffic so carefullee,
That’s how we launder money at HSBC.

They finance all that traffic so carefullee,
That’s how they launder money at HSBC.

There is so much dope to buy and sell;
We’ve accounts of the Sinaloa drug cartel.
Some cash they got selling their cocaine
Obama got for his two thousand eight campaign!

Obama got for his two thousand eight campaign!

I guess that’s why we’ve always gotten off scott free,
With laundering their money at HSBC.

He’d guess that’s why they’ve always gotten off scott free,
With laundering their money at HSBC.

Convicting us, it seemed such a cinch,
But the DOJ sent Loretta Lynch,
She made our bargain so benevolent,
She got the nomination of the President.

She got the nomination of the President!

Deferring prosecution with a fine so wee,
So we can launder money at HSBC.

Deferring prosecution with a fine so wee,
So they can launder money at HSBC.

Bandar bin Sultan, of Arabia the Prince
To finance jihadis spares no expense,
As his Al-Yamama funding grew,
So Al-Qaeda did, and Islamic State too.

So Al-Qaeda did, and Islamic State too!

When assassins have there banking needs,
They can come launder money at HSBC.


When assassins have there banking needs,
They can come launder money at HSBC!

With Wall Street and with London crashing down,
As the raids, subpoenas, are circling around,
I am now looking forward to a prison cell;
If I’ve a soul, I fear that it will burn in Hell.

Had he a Soul, he fears that it will burn in Hell!

But p’rhaps while in Hell, I invited will be,
To tea, with Her Majesty, at HSBC!

But p’rhaps while in Hell, he invited will be,
To tea, with Her Majesty, at HSBC!

Posted in Glass Steagall | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Zeus Option for General Depopulation of the Planet

In a new evaluation presented to his associates in the past 48 hours, Lyndon LaRouche states that the strategy for nuclear war being pursued by the Anglo-American monetarists will in all probability target Eurasia for extinction. They believe that they can actually win a war, which will depopulate much of the planet, while saving the United States and other areas of the transatlantic region. Here are LaRouche’s remarks in full.

We have a situation in which we have to recognize the characteristics of the situation we’re operating in.

How do you pull the forces of the human population, and draw them together in such a way that they, themselves, find themselves dedicated to preventing this atrocity?
— Lyndon LaRouche • Feb. 25, 2015

That is that we’re on the verge of being pulled into the potential of a thermonuclear war, but the idea of the thermonuclear war is not quite what Obama or Obama-thinkers would imagine.  Because the situation is such that if you want to take an optimal estimate of how this thing will will work out, you would have to say that the Eurasian area is the area in which the British,—even though they don’t have much capability to be able to do anything strategically,— but they could waste much of Eurasia, for the sake of what they want to do: their fun and games.

Thus their fun and games could be, most likely the type in which the Atlantic-to-Pacific element of Eurasia would be targeted, rather than the United States, and you could go south from there.  The very idea that you’re going to start with a world war of all the territory of the planet, is not exactly what the schemers want to have.  They want a certain part of the world within the trans-Atlantic region as a playground, from which they would watch the destruction of the rest of the world.

The danger lies essentially in the focus within Western Europe and Eurasia.  I’m not saying this is going to happen, but this is the likely case.  The likely case is that it is not the United States which will be hit hard, although of course it will be hit, but Eurasia will be hit hard. That’s pretty much obvious right now.

That being the case, we have to change the way people understand the threat of a general thermonuclear war.  And what most people would assume to be the characteristic threat, is something which I would say, on my best guess, is not what’s going to happen.  But rather, the full blast, the destructive force, will be in the Eurasian mainland and southern parts accordingly.  That’s where the problem lies.  Now, we have to actually define that problem, rather than just going with this “All-out, well, maybe, so forth, so on.”  We’ve got to get rid of that.  Because there’s no purpose for running a war of this type on a full scale, in terms of the world as a whole.  That does not make sense.  But, what would make sense, is what was done with Zeus, a Zeusian kind of thing, where a very extensive destruction of large areas of the planet Earth would be affected, and it would be really a long time before anybody really moved things up and started to build a civilization again.

That’s what we have to look at.  Now that means that we have to think accordingly.  I think Obama is a real loser.  I don’t see how he can possibly get by with what he’s intending to do. It’s obvious that anybody who’s trying to run an operation, like the Anglo-American forces, is going to play it carefully, but let the full blast of evil strike generally on the Eurasian land-area.

That’s what we’re looking at.  And for the time being, we ought to focus our attention on that, without placing any specific limits on such a war.  But we should recognize that anybody who’s going to run a thermonuclear war on the planet right now, is going to limit the territory, and it can be very large areas of territory, especially on Eurasia.  But we have to operate on the basis of assuming that that is the best option for terror from the Anglo-American interests.  And we ought to react on that basis.  Not go fishing around and saying, “Maybe we’ll all be wiped out.”  I don’t think the intention is there, even for evil people, to do that kind of thing.  They might do it on a very large scale, like a Eurasian scale.  But they’re not going to blow up the whole planet; that’s not their option.  It could happen, of course, but it wouldn’t be their choice of option. They might fall into it; that’s a fact we have to take into account.

But the likely fact is that the area of Eurasia, and areas south of it, is the area in which a thermonuclear war is a likely proposition.  That’s what we ought to concentrate on.  Other things could happen, but the Eurasian option is the likely option.  So, let’s not get stuck into this thing about worrying, and spreading the word, that everyone is going to get killed, wiped out.  Well, you could probably get two thirds of the population of the planet wiped out, but they would want to have an area which they could operate in, even with a greatly reduced population in the trans-Atlantic area, for an actual operation.

Remember, there are other forces involved here than just Obama.  So, we ought to be more specific, and don’t make sweeping, generalized statements about wiping out the human species on this planet as a whole.  That would be very foolish mistake; I think we ought to avoid that.

You can’t think about how you’re going to bargain or try to negotiate this thing.  You’ve got to actually present this fact, that this is reality.  Stick to the concept of that effect, that intention.  Expect that intention to be realized.  Now, you’ve got to stop it.

Zeus must be convinced that he won’t be able to survive his genocide.  They’ll call this blackmail, but it isn’t blackmail.

My intention is to save humanity.  I’m trying to make people aware of the conditions under which a Zeus option is not possible.

Go back to Jeanne D’Arc.  Jeanne D’Arc made herself the commander, the captain.  She was captured by the British, so to speak.  And they tortured her. They tortured her to death.  They cooked her, and they disintegrated her body afterward.  And what happened as a result, was that the Renaissance forces reacted to what was done to Jeanne D’Arc by what we would call the British today.  The murder of Jeanne D’Arc actually produced the will to defeat the forces which had killed her.  That became the Renaissance; all decent civilization throughout the planet is the fruit of the influence of the Renaissance, with Nicholas of Cusa at its center.

This is what we’re talking about; this is strategy.  This is what I’m talking about.  We need a new Renaissance now, a serious Renaissance.  We understand how the human species behaves; we understand its evil as well as its good potential, and we must make an instrument which will do what has to be done, to prevent a mass killing of the human population.  And to create a new kind of organization, a new kind of Renaissance, in the sense of Nicholas of Cusa’s Renaissance.  That’s the policy, not the dibs and dabs and so forth.  And that will work.  That’s what we must do.  We’re getting indications that such potentials exist.  They may be faint on the horizon, but they exist.  And if we do our job properly, we can call a halt to the genocide.

You have to approach this as a matter of a war.  How do you conduct a war which you don’t want to become a war?   How do you pull the forces of the human population, and draw them together in such a way that they, themselves, find themselves dedicated to preventing this atrocity?

You have to lead.   And to deal with an atrocity of this nature, you have to go to the edge of everything.  And you have to jam the works up, so the awful thing does not happen. Nicholas of Cusa’s work was in that direction, along with others in the Renaissance.  And that’s the way we have to approach it. You have to take the principle of the Renaissance.  You have to look at the idea of the Renaissance, from the standpoint of the long wait of Europe to become free of the Zeus atrocity.  So therefore, this is a strategic force of a special kind.  It’s a special kind of force which appears in the scope of human history only very, very rarely.  And it’s just as well it is that way.


Moscow Would Not Remain Indifferent to Provocative Actions Such as Arming Kiev

The foreign ministers of the Normandy Four — France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine — met in Paris yesterday, and the French Foreign Ministry issued the communique, calling for strict implementation of all provisions of the Minsk agreements, earliest possible withdrawal of heavy weapons, access of OSCE monitors to all areas, Ukrainian working groups to achieve progress, among other things, on the political process in Ukraine, and unhindered humanitarian access.

“Lastly, we confirm that France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine remain determined to continue taking action in this format and to do their utmost to ensure that the commitments are upheld and the crisis is resolved.”

Once outside the meeting, the French and German Foreign Ministers warned of the impact of ceasefire violations near Mariupol, without, however, mentioning the possibility that those violations were committed by Nazi-linked militias from Kiev, as has been reported.

In follow-up comments in Moscow today, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said:

“A lot now depends on an honest, objective, unbiased approach by the observers who must record what is happening on the ground, so that we can all resist the attempts to present the Minsk agreements as having already failed. There are many people outside Ukraine and in Kiev who want them derailed.”

Tass reported that he also said that all other provisions of the Minsk agreement must also be complied with, not just the withdrawal of heavy weapons.

“This applies to the political process and the constitutional reform, with decentralization being its main thrust.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov warned yesterday that the whole process would blow up if the US started supplying weapons to Kiev. He said:

“It would be a major blow to the Minsk agreements and would explode the whole situation.”

Moscow would not be able to remain indifferent “to such provocative actions,” he added.

“We’ll have to respond appropriately. Is that necessary for those who are allegedly calling for the normalization of the situation in Ukraine? I have serious doubts. People may be irresponsible in their actions, but there must be an end to this madness [of] indulging Kiev’s warmongering.”

Latvian Prime Minister: No One Wants World War III over Ukraine

Speaking on Latvian television yesterday, Latvian Prime Minister Laimdota Straujuma said that no one is ready to start the Third World War. Western countries are refraining “from too sharp a reaction” by not disconnecting Russia from the SWIFT international interbank system and avoiding military intervention in the Donbas conflict, since they fear that their actions can further contribute to escalation of the conflict.

As cited by Mirror of Ukraine from (Latvian), she said:

“No one is ready to start the Third World War. Germany is especially cautious in this regard. Because there is nothing more important than to engage in a dialogue and come to a consensus.”

Posted in Stopping WW III | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment