Thursday 29th of July 2021

NATO fever forever

nato   NATO is looking to the future. For this reason, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg summoned students and young leaders of the Alliance countries via videoconference on 4 February, proposing “new ideas for NATO 2030.”
His initiative is part of the growing involvement with universities and schools, also with a competition on the theme: “What will be the greatest threats to peace and security in 2030 and how will NATO adapt to counter them?”
  To carry out the theme, young people already have their textbook: “NATO 2030/United for a New Era”. The report was presented by a group of ten experts appointed by the Secretary-General. Among these experts is Marta Dassù, who, after being a foreign policy advisor to Former Prime Minister D’Alema during the NATO war in Yugoslavia, held important positions in successive governments and was appointed by Former Prime Minister Renzi to the Finmeccanica board of directors (now Leonardo), the largest Italian war industry.

  What is the “new era” that the experts group envisages? After defining NATO as “the most successful alliance in history”, that “put an end to two wars” (these wars against Yugoslavia and Libya were instead triggered by NATO), the report painted the picture of a world characterised by “authoritarian States seeking to expand their power and influence”, posing to NATO allies “a systemic challenge in all security and economy fields”.

  Reversing facts, the report claimed that, while NATO amicably extended its hand to Russia, Russia responded with “aggression in the Euro-Atlantic area” and, in agreements’ violation “brought about the end of the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces”. Russia, the ten experts pointed out, is “the main threat facing NATO in this decade”.

  At the same time – they argued – NATO is facing growing “security challenges posed by China”, whose economic activities and technologies may have “an impact on collective defense and military preparation in the area of Supreme Allied Commander’s responsibility in Europe” (The Supreme Commander is always a US general appointed by the President of the United States).

  After raising the alarm on these and other “threats”, that would also come from the South of the World, the report of the ten experts recommended “cementing the centrality of the transatlantic link”, that is, Europe’s link with the United States in the alliance under US command.

  At the same time, he recommended “strengthening the political role of NATO”, underlining that “the Allies must strengthen the North Atlantic Council”, the main political body of the Alliance that meets at Defense and Foreign Ministers level and State and Government leaders. Since the North Atlantic Council takes its decisions, according to NATO rules, not by majority but always “unanimously and by mutual agreement”, it is basically in agreement with what was decided in Washington, the further strengthening of the North Atlantic Council means a further weakening of the European Parliaments, particularly the Italian Parliament, already deprived of real decision-making powers on foreign and military policy.

  In this context, the report proposed to strengthen NATO forces in particular on the Eastern flank, providing them with “adequate nuclear military capabilities”, suitable for the situation created with the end of the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (which was torn apart by the US). In other words, the ten experts asked the US to speed up the time to deploy in Europe not only the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, but also new medium-range nuclear missiles similar to the 1980s Euromissiles.

  They particularly asked to “continue and revitalise nuclear sharing agreements”, which formally allowed non-nuclear countries, such as Italy, to get ready for the use of nuclear weapons under US command. Finally, the ten experts recalled that it is essential that all allies maintain their commitment, made in 2014, to increase their military spending to at least 2% of GDP by 2024, which means for Italy to increase it from 26 to 36 billion euros per year. This is the price to pay to enjoy what the report called “the benefits of being under the NATO umbrella”
.  •Source: il manifesto of 2 February 2021(Translation Current Concerns)

назови меня своим именем...

... Asked what the consequences would be, he said: "You'll see shortly."

When asked if he thought Mr Putin was "a killer", President Biden said "I do".

In a later news conference, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said relations between Russia and the US would be different than under the Trump presidency.

"Certainly the Russians will be held accountable for the action they've taken," Ms Psaki told reporters.

Is this the first clash between Putin and Biden?

Ten years ago, when he was vice-president to Barack Obama, Mr Biden met Mr Putin at the Kremlin at a time when the Russian president was temporarily serving as prime minister.

"I said, 'Mr Prime Minister, I'm looking into your eyes, and I don't think you have a soul,'" he recalled in an interview for the New Yorker a few years later.

"He looked back at me, and he smiled, and he said, 'We understand one another.'"

Before his election last year, Mr Biden had also referred to Mr Putin as a "KGB thug**", referring to his past in the Soviet secret service.




The accusation [of being a killer*], the Kremlin says, is unprecedented: a US president calling the Russian leader a killer. 

The foreign ministry here has demanded an explanation whilst Mr Putin's spokesman calls the comment a clear sign that President Biden has no intention of repairing relations with Russia. 

But Vladimir Putin himself appeared to take the insult in his stride. After all, it plays to his main idea: that the West is Russophobic, a hostile force. Mr Putin said Joe Biden was simply seeing his own traits in the Russian leader and argued that the US was a murderous state - with a list of shameful chapters in its history from slavery to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

State media here are fuming that the US president has crossed a red line with what commentators are calling a direct insult. The Kremlin spokesman told me that relations with the US now are "very bad" - and they do seem bound to get worse. 

2px presentational grey line
What exactly did Putin say?

Rejecting Mr Biden's accusations, he used a Russian school playground rhyme, which literally translates as "whoever calls names gets called those names", and equates in English to "it takes one to know one"***. 

"You know I remember in my childhood, when we argued in the playground we used to say, 'it takes one to know one'," he said in comments broadcast on state television.


Read more:




*Gusnote: Joe Biden is far more of a killer than Putin has ever been... Biden has supported all the little wars waged by the USA (more than 2 million dead) — despite being a committed Catholic. Biden is the most hypocrite president the US ever had.


**Gusnote: George Bush senior was a CIA operative from age 18 and eventually became the CIA chief before becoming president... despite his failings, he was a more competent president than Biden who HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF HUMANITY — AND IS A COMPLETE LYING DESPICABLE THUG.



***Gusnote: The translation "it takes one to know one" is wrong. It seems that Putin actually said "you are calling me what you are." There is a big difference of meaning, but it is deliberately mistranslated by Western journalists to still promote Putin as a "killer".





UN agenda 2030

The top-down reorganization of the world economy by a cabal of technocratic corporativists, led by the group around the Davos World Economic Forum– the so-called Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030– is no future proposal. It is well into actualization as the world remains in insane lockdown for a virus. The hottest investment area since onset of the coronavirus global lockdowns is something called ESG investing. This highly subjective and very controlled game is dramatically shifting global capital flows into a select group of “approved” corporate stocks and bonds. Notably it advances the dystopian UN Agenda 2030 or the WEF Great Reset agenda. The development is one of the most dangerous and least understood shifts in at least the past century.

The UN “sustainable economy” agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked “woke” companies, and away from the “not woke” such as oil and gas companies or coal.

What the bankers and giant investment funds like BlackRock have done is to create a new investment infrastructure that picks “winners” or “losers” for investment according to how serious that company is about ESG—Environment, Social values and Governance. For example a company gets positive ratings for the seriousness of its hiring gender diverse management and employees, or takes measures to eliminate their carbon “footprint” by making their energy sources green or sustainable to use the UN term. How corporations contribute to a global sustainable governance is the most vague of the ESG, and could include anything from corporate donations to Black Lives Matter to supporting UN agencies such as WHO. 

The crucial central goal of ESG strategists is to create a shift to inefficient and costly alternative energy, the Zero Carbon promised utopia. It is being driven by the world’s major financial institutions and central banks. They have created a dazzling array of organizations to drive their green investing agenda.

In 2013, well before the coronavirus, the major Wall Street bank, Morgan Stanley, created its own Institute for Sustainable Investing. This was soon expanded in 2015 when Morgan Stanley joined the Steering Committee of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF). On its website the they state,

“PCAF is based upon the Paris Climate Agreement’s position that the global community should strive to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and that society should decarbonize and reach net zero emissions by 2050.”


By 2020 the PCAF had more than 100 banks and financial institutions including ABN Amro, Nat West, Lloyds Bank, Barcylays, Bank of America, Citi Group, CIBC, Danske Bank and others. Several of the PCAF member banks have been indicted in money laundering cases. Now they sense a new role as virtue-models to change the world economy, if we are to believe the rhetoric. Notably, former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney is an “Observer” or consultant to the PCAF.

In August 2020 the PCAF published a draft standard outlining a proposed approach for global carbon accounting. This means the bankers are creating their own accounting rules for how to rate or value a company’s carbon footprint or green profile. 


The Central Role of Mark Carney

Mark Carney is at the center of reorganizing world finance to back the UN 2030 green agenda behind the WEF Davos Great Reset, where he is a member of the Board of Trustees. He also is Adviser to the UN Secretary General as United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action. He has described the PCAF plan as follows: 

“To achieve net zero we need a whole economy transition – every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models, develop credible plans for the transition and implement them. For financial firms, that means reviewing more than the emissions generated by their own business activity. They must measure and report the emissions generated by the companies they invest in and lend to. PCAF’s work to standardise the approach to measuring financed emissions is an important step to ensuring that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”


As Governor of the Bank of England Carney played a key role getting world central banks behind the Green Agenda of the UN 2030 scheme. The major central banks of the world, through their umbrella Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basle, created a key part of the growing global infrastructure that is steering investment flows to “sustainable” companies and away from those like oil and gas companies it deems “unsustainable.” When then-Bank of England Governor Mark Carney was head of the BIS’ Financial Stability Board (FSB) he established something called Task-force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) in 2015. 

The central bankers of the FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, it included in addition to BlackRock, JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re, the world’s second largest reinsurance; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, mining giant BHP and David Blood of Al Gore’s Generation Investment LLC.

Anne Finucane, the Vice Chair of the Bank of America, a member of both the PCAF and the TCFD, noted, “we are committed to ensuring that climate-related risks and opportunities are properly managed within our business and that we are working with governments and markets to accelerate the changes required… climate change presents risks to the business community, and it is important for companies to articulate how these risks are being managed.” 

The Bank of America vice chair describes how they assess risks in its real estate loan portfolio by assessing, “acute physical risk analysis on a sample portfolio of Bank of America residential mortgages across the US Each property was given a score based on the level of risk associated with 12 potential hazards: tornado, earthquake, tropical cyclone, hailstorm, wildfire, river flood, flash flood, coastal flood, lightning, tsunami, volcano, and winter storm.” As well, the banks’ investment “risk” in oil and gas as well as other industrial sectors is reviewed using the criteria of Carney’s TCFD. All risks are defined as related to CO2, despite the fact there is no conclusive scientific proof that manmade CO2 emission is about to destroy our planet by global warming. Rather evidence of solar activity suggests we are entering an unstable cooling period, Grand Solar Minimum. That’s of no concern to the financial interests who stand to reap trillions in the coming decade.

Another key part of the financial preparation for the Great Reset, the fundamental transformation from a high-energy intensity economy to a low and economically inefficient one, is the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). SASB says it “provides a clear set of standards for reporting sustainability information across a wide range of issues… “ This sounds reassuring until we look at who makes up the members of the SASB that will give the Climate-friendly Imprimatur. Members include, in addition to the world’s largest fund manager, BlackRock (more than $7 trillion under management), also Vanguard Funds, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, State Street Global, Carlyle Group, Rockefeller Capital Management, and numerous major banks such as Bank of America and UBS. Many of these are responsible for the 2008 global financial collapse. What is this framework group doing? According to their website, “Since 2011, we have has been working towards an ambitious goal of developing and maintaining sustainability accounting standards for 77 industries.”

Where this is all going is to create a web of globally-based financial entities who control combined wealth including insurance and pension funds into what they claim to be worth $100 trillion. They are setting the rules and will define a company or even a country by the degree of carbon emission they create. If you are clean and green, you potentially get investment. If you are deemed a carbon polluter as the oil, gas and coal industries are deemed today, the global capital flows will disinvest or avoid funding you. The immediate target of this financial cabal is the backbone of the world economy, the oil and gas industry along with coal. 

Hydrocarbons Under Attack

The immediate target of this financial cartel is the backbone of the world economy, the oil, coal and natural gas sector. Oil industry analysts predict that over the next five years or less investment flows into the world’s largest energy sector will fall dramatically. “Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy,” BlackRock’s chairman and CEO Larry Fink wrote in his 2021 letter to CEOs. Blackrock is the world’s largest investment group with over $7 trillion to invest. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, “where BlackRock goes, others will follow.”

“To continue to attract capital, portfolios have to be built around core advantaged assets – low-cost, long-life, low carbon-intensive barrels,” said Andrew Latham, Vice President, Global Exploration at WoodMac, an energy consultancy.

The Biden Administration is already making good on his pledge to phase out oil and gas by banning new leases in Federal lands and offshore and the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The oil and gas sector and its derivatives such as petrochemicals are at the heart of the world economy. The 50 largest oil and gas companies in the world, including both state-owned and publicly traded companies, recorded revenues of about $5.4 trillion in 2015.

As a new Biden Administration pushes their ideological opposition to so-called fossil fuels, the world will see a precipitous decline in oil and gas investment. The role of the Davos globalists and the ESG financial players are out to guarantee that. And the losers will be us. Energy prices will skyrocket as they did during the recent Texas blizzards. The cost of electricity in industrial countries will become prohibitive for manufacturing industry. But rest well. This is all part of the ongoing Great Reset and its new doctrine of ESG investing.

In 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” The WEF Great Reset is not simply a big idea of Klaus Schwab reflecting on the economic devastation of the coronavirus. It has been long planned by the money masters.


F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.



Read more:


Gusnote: The world economies need to do something about global warming which is accelerating... It is likely that all the money fiddles by the "dystopian UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF Great Reset agenda" won't change anything. By 2032, we'll all be in trouble with a planet at 1.79 degrees Celsius above average. And we know what this means... Before this, some people have seen a way to make money out of our incoming misery while spruiking they will make the problem go away... They are snake oil merchants. The Coronavirus has been a boon to some profiteers, especially the big pharmas. Tomorrow, something else will come to the fore, like Old Joe confusing the red button on his desk with his itchy nose cavity (to be polite)... With NATO on the prowl AS WELL, we can only expect TROUBLE...





Millions of people suffer and die from the effects of radiation exposure from decades of nuclear weapons testing. Their experience should give serious pause to those who continue to embrace the viability of a nuclear deterrent.

A dust storm originating in the Sahara Desert swept across parts of Spain, France, the UK, and Ireland last month. In addition to bringing a red tinge to the sky, the dust caused a slight, yet noticeable, spike in radiation in the areas it reached. This radiation spike was caused by the presence of cesium-137, a radioactive isotope produced through the nuclear fission of uranium-235 in nuclear weapons. A legacy of French nuclear weapons testing that occurred in Algeria during the 1960s, the cesium-137 contamination is a reminder that while the testing of nuclear weapons may have been halted for the time being, the consequences of these tests live on through the poisoning of the planet mankind calls home.

The Saharan radioactive dust cloud is but the most recent visible phenomenon of a plague that has infected much of the world. Cancer and birth defects can be linked to hundreds of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted by the five so-called “nuclear powers” (the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom). The secrecy that these states attached–and still attach–to these tests has complicated efforts to obtain a true and accurate account of the human cost associated with nuclear weapons testing. Even the horrific numbers put out by a 1991 study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which estimated that the radiation and radioactive materials from atmospheric testing taken in by people caused 430,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000, and predicted that roughly 2.4 million people could eventually die from cancer because of atmospheric testing, is just a guess.


Read more:


At least with the coronavirus, we don't guess the exact number of death, do we?... (satirical laughter)...


Read from top.




will aussie subs be as good?...


NATO has lost track of a Russian submarine, the Rostov-on-Don, off the coast of Lebanon. It belongs to the Kilo-class (or Varshavyanka, according to Russian nomenclature) of diesel-electric powered submarines known to be the quietest in the world.

Since this submarine was geared with subsonic Kalibr missiles and surveillance equipment, NATO launched a vast tracking operation which turned to failure.

Simultaneously, communications from British aircraft based in Cyprus were jammed. NATO considers it unlikely that this was done by the Syrians since they lack the necessary equipment, but thinks it was a Russian "attack". For six years, the Russian military has displayed its capabilities in this area in Kalilingrad, Crimea and Syria. Officially, they were portrayed as transport planes, unless they were in fact electronic surveillance planes [1].



Read more:


See also:




terminate NATO now...


The Washington Post has published a long piece calling for NATO to take on a new official enemy — China. The piece is written by Sara Bjerg Moller, an assistant professor in the School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University. She argues that after 30 years since losing the Soviet Union as its official enemy and struggling to find a replacement to justify its continued existence, a perfect replacement would be China.

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s just put NATO out of its misery and terminate it. 

After all, let’s not forget NATO’s original mission: to defend Europe from the possibility of an invasion by the Soviet Union, which had been America’s and Britain’s World War II partner and ally but which had been converted to their official enemy at the end of the war.

But the likelihood of a Soviet invasion of Europe was always nil. The Soviet Union had been decimated by World War II, especially as a result of the German invasion of the country. Even though the invasion was ultimately repelled and Germany was defeated, the Soviet Union’s industrial capacity had been destroyed, not to mention the millions of Russian citizens who had been killed. The last thing the Soviet Union wanted was another war, especially given that the United States possessed nuclear weapons and had shown a willingness to employ them against large cities.

The advocates of a national-security state in the United States, however, needed a new official enemy to replace Nazi Germany, especially to justify the conversion of the U.S. government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a type of governmental structure with omnipotent, non-reviewable powers. The Soviet Union and “godless communism” fit the bill perfectly. The American people were then inculcated with the notion that there was an international communist conspiracy to take over the United States and the rest of the world that was based in Moscow, Russia.

To convince Americans and western Europeans that the Soviet Union posed a grave threat to them, U.S. officials pointed to the postwar Soviet occupations of Eastern Europe and East Germany as examples of communist aggression. They apparently forgot that President Franklin Roosevelt had delivered such lands into the hands of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who FDR affectionately referred to as his “Uncle Joe,” at their wartime summit in Yalta. Was it really too surprising that Stalin accepted FDR’s gift, especially given that Eastern Europe and East Germany would serve as a buffer against another German invasion of the Soviet Union?

It was within this fervent anti-communist environment that NATO was formed. But in 1989, the Cold War suddenly and unexpectedly came to an end, which, needless to say, put the U.S. national-security establishment and NATO into a panic. After all, the Cold War was the justification for both of these institutions. With no Cold War, they could both be dismantled.

Instead, the national-security establishment simply went into the Middle East and began poking hornets’ nest, which ultimately brought terrorist retaliation, which in turn brought the “war on terrorism,” another racket that has kept the national-security establishment in high cotton.

Meanwhile, unwilling to let Russia go as an official enemy, NATO began gobbling up former members of the Warsaw Pact, with the aim of placing U.S. troops and missiles ever closer to Russia’s borders and with the hope of provoking a reaction, which ultimately came about in Ukraine.

As Moller argues, however, Russia poses no real threat to Europe and, therefore, cannot be seriously considered to be a justification for NATO. Instead, she argues, it’s time to replace Russia with China, owing to China’s rise as an international powerhouse. The reasoning is classic empire-think: If a nation starts to prosper and rise, it’s best to put it down before it gets too large and powerful. 

How about just leaving China and Russia alone? What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with other nations becoming prosperous? The fact is that NATO should never have been established in the first place. Moreover, the biggest mistake in U.S. history was to convert the federal government to a national-security state. The best thing American could do now is terminate NATO and restore a limited-government republic to our land.


Read more:

NATO is used by the Americans to make sure Europe does not rise... and stays a vassal of the USA. The general De Gaulle knew this...


Read from top.



free assange, president biden...