Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

Category: Featured

Agenda 2030: “Tapping into the savings of citizens”

UN Chief To Reshape Global Finance For Sustainable Development

Secretary-General Ant—nio Guterres speaks at the Financing the 2030 Agenda, ÒThe Role of the United NationsÓ at the UN on Sunday, September 18, 2017. While Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, right and H.E. Ms. Gabriela Michetti, Vice President of Argentina, left, listen on. (UN Photo/Ariana Lindquist)
Danger: The Deputy Secretary-General, Amina Mohammed, said that “trillions of dollars need to be mobilized a year by tapping into the savings of citizens around the world…” The financing fix for Sustainable Development is revealed: simply take it from citizens’ saving accounts. Actually, if Sustainable Development is completely established in place of Capitalism/Free Enterprise, private property (including savings) will be wiped out anyway.  TN Editor

As the high-level week of the United Nations General Assembly gets underway, Secretary-General António Guterres today stressed the role of the UN to help reshape “unproductive and unrewarding” finance and redirect investment to creating a better world for all.

“The choices we make on finance will be critical,” Mr. Guterres told a special event held at the UN Headquarters in New York on financing for global development goals.

Mr. Guterres noted that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – adopted by UN Member States in September 2015 – are a blueprint for building an inclusive, sustainable fair globalization.

“We can choose to bemoan the lack of financing for the 2030 Agenda in a world awash with so much unproductive and unrewarding finance. Or we can grasp the opportunity to reshape finance, according to our urgent, collective needs,” he said. “The choice is clear. Let us invest in the 2030 Agenda and finance a better world for all.”

However, today’s global financial system, which manages some $300 trillion in financial assets, is simply not fit for purpose, the UN chief said, recalling that the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, adopted in 2015 at an international conference in the Ethiopian capital on financing for development, highlights the importance of being innovative in leveraging resources and financing for development.

The UN’s three-part strategy for enhancing its support to financing the 2030 Agenda would help achieve short- and medium-term results, he said.

The Secretary-General said that he will lead UN efforts to ensure that the objectives of the 2030 Agenda are fully reflected in international economic and financial policies by working closely with key inter-governmental platforms, such as the G20.

Second, he will reform the UN development system to strengthen its country teams, and third, he will champion key international initiatives that can harness large-scale changes in financing and financial system development, such as in the fields of digitalization and climate finance and in cooperating with major investment initiatives.

Also addressing the event was Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, who said that trillions of dollars need to be mobilized a year by tapping into the savings of citizens around the world, official development assistance (ODA), domestic financing and the world’s financial system.

The UN has always been engaged in this financing agenda, with its partners, allies and of course Member States, but “our question is whether we are doing enough, and the answer, in short, is no,” she said, explaining that this event is timely as it highlights progress and opportunities from parts of the UN’s leadership team, key partners such as the World Bank, private sector actors, and Member States.

Read full story here…

An Economic Lesson for China and Russia, by Paul Craig Roberts

An Economic Lesson for China and Russia
Paul Craig Roberts

 

 

Economic lesson Russia china
Is there anyone in Trump’s government who is not an imbecile?
After years of endless military threats against Russia—remember CIA deputy director Mike Morell saying on TV (Charlie Rose show) that the US should start killing Russians to give them a message, and Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley threatening “We’ll beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before”—now the US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin threatens China. If China doesn’t abide by Washington’s new sanctions on North Korea, Mnuchin said the US “will put additional sanctions on them [China] and prevent them from accessing the US and international dollar system.”
https://www.rt.com/usa/403118-usa-china-sanctions-north-korea/
Here is the broke US government $20 trillion in public debt, having to print money with which to buy its own bonds, threatening the second largest economy in the world, an economy on purchasing power parity terms that is larger than the US economy.Mnuchin threatens China
Take a moment to think about Mnuchin’s threat to China. How many US firms are located in China? It is not only Apple and Nike. Would sanctions on China mean that the US firms could not sell their Chinese made products in the US or anywhere outside China? Do you think the global US corporations would stand for this?
What if China responded by nationalizing all US factories and all Western owned banks in China and Hong Kong? China US economy

Mnuchin is like the imbecile Nikki Haley. He doesn’t know who he is threatening.
Consider Mnuchin’s threat to exclude China from the international dollar system. Nothing could do more harm to the US and more good to China. A huge amount of economic transactions would simply exit the dollar system, reducing its scope and importance. Most importantly, it would finally dawn on the Chinese and Russian governments that being a part of the dollar system is a massive liability with no benefits. Russia and China should years ago have created their own system. Being part of Washington’s system simply lets Washington make threats and impose sanctions.
The reason Russia and China are blind to this is that they foolishly sent students to the US to study economics. These students returned completely brainwashed with neoliberal economics, “junk economics” in Michael Hudson’s term. This American economics makes Russian and Chinese economists de facto American stooges. They support policies that serve Washington instead of their own countries.
If China and Russia want to be sovereign countries, they must pray that the imbecile Mnuchin does cut them off from the dollar system that exploits them. Then Russia and China will have to put in place their own system and learn real economics instead of propaganda posing as economics that serves Washington’s interest.

Paul Craig RobertsPaul Craig Roberts

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/09/13/economic-lesson-china-russia/

Are Elite Controllers a fantasy? Read this.

 

by Jon Rappoport

September 11, 2017

 

We rarely get a chance to see a smoking gun that proves elite controllers are running the show from behind the curtain.

That’s why there is a curtain.Elite controlling

So I’m republishing a conversation between two members of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission (TC) and a US reporter.

First, a bit of background:

In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Who is in charge of destroying national economies, in order to create a new international order?

Who keeps pushing new economy-destroying trade treaties?

Who demands that these treaties must be ratified?

Who is in the business of killing jobs and hope?

Who demands that more US jobs disappear overseas and never come back?

The Trilateral Commission (TC).

The original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

Here is a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management”, ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).

The conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.

Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House.

He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

Here we go:

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

What kind of order?

Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

If you were a young ambitious reporter for The New York Times, if you read this astonishing Trilateral interview, wouldn’t you go to your editor and demand to be put on the story? Wouldn’t you want to dig deep and find out more details and names? Wouldn’t you want to blow the whole, yes, conspiracy, wide open? Wouldn’t you want readers to know the truth about who is running their country from behind the scenes?

Well, yes, you might. But if you did, and if you wouldn’t back down after your editor told you to forget about it, you would end up with no job, and eventually you would be covering picnics for some small-town newspaper.

With the rise of independent media, however, reporters don’t need to worry about Sunday picnics.

The truth suffices.

With the rise of independent media, reporters know some of their stories will be linked and forwarded all over the world, and people with curiosity and intelligence and alert minds will discover the truth that major media have been hiding from them.

Hiding, for decades.

Are Elite Controllers a fantasy? Read this.

Cashless Society: China’s KFC Introduces Facial Recognition Payment System

By Nicholas West

Step by step, facial recognition has been accepted by the general public for security; its appearance is proliferating at airports and at train stations around the world. With that acclimatization in full swing, facial recognition is also becoming a preference in the name of convenience as it is being adopted for conference check-ins and other events. Logically, the next incarnation purports security and convenience in the form of biometric payments using facial recognition.

Reuters reports that an upscale version of KFC, known locally as KPRO, is a testing ground.

Diners at a KFC store in the eastern Chinese city of Hangzhou will have a new way to pay for their meal. Just smile.

Customers will be able to use a “Smile to Pay” facial recognition system at the tech-heavy, health-focused concept store, part of a drive by Yum China Holdings Inc to lure a younger generation of consumers.

Yum China, which spun off from its U.S. parent Yum Brands Inc last year, is trying to rev up growth in the world’s second largest economy, where food safety scares and changing consumer tastes have dented sales since 2012.

Yum is still the largest fast food chain in the market, where it has over 7,685 outlets. Its China same-store sales have also been slowly improving, rising in the second quarter of the year on a strong showing by its KFC brand.

[…]

Diners can pay by scanning their faces at an ordering kiosk and entering a phone number – which is meant to guard against people cheating the system.

“Combined with a 3D camera and liveness detection algorithm, Smile to Pay can effectively block spoofing attempts using other people’s photos or video recordings and ensure account safety,” Jidong Chen, Ant’s director of biometric identification technology, said in a statement.

As I wrote in 2014, the move to give everyone a global unique ID that can be verified across nearly all human activity has been in the works for some time. The principle behind this is that YOU are the password of the future.

Naturally, the fear of identity theft and cyber-banking crime of all stripes has been the sales pitch to accept identity tech such as facial recognition, iris scans, and fingerprinting, as well as their attendant databases.

Digital sign-in services, smart cards and a range of biometrics have all been offered as perfect solutions that are starting to enter the market at many levels. Moreover, there is an ongoing cooperative effort between global banks and corporations to ensure that there will be standardized, centralized entry into the consumer/Internet/banking matrix of the future. Couple this with the (hackable) “Internet of Things” entering our homes whether we approve or not and we are finding ourselves at the threshold of a new reality.

China’s technocratic and authoritarian leadership is the perfect synthesis to advance biometric payment systems.  Utilizing Alipay, China’s largest digital payments system that is an affiliate of mega corp Alibaba, China is transitioning to a cashless society at the fastest rate in the world, as seen in the graphic below.

And China’s cashless society incredibly goes right down to street-level. From the Observer:

…if you want to spare some change for a beggar you no longer need to rummage through your pockets. Now, you simply scan the beggar’s bar code. This has already happened in China.

In fact, the most populous nation on Earth has set out a formal plan to create a cashless nation within 5 years, with Alipay even having hosted a “Cashless Society Week” to spur nationwide adoption by banks, corporations and merchants.

With this as the backdrop, then, we are starting to see a rollout among popular merchants like KFC.   One of the main issues for anyone who is concerned about this direction is that, as the Reuters article alludes to, the number of young “tech savvy” consumers is rising. So, essentially we have an entire generation who is being raised on this type of intrusive technology without being aware of the larger global agenda that has been planned for potentially nefarious purposes.

I would encourage readers to visit the Better Than Cash Alliance — a government-corporate working group — from which many of these “de-cashing” directives have been launched. One will quickly see that this roll-out is not limited only to those countries with overt authoritarian leanings, but spans the globe in many different forms.

As always, sharing knowledge is key in helping to determine the direction of the future. It is particularly important to educate today’s young people who are born with a smartphone and raised on digital systems. Empowered with knowledge of the full scope of what it means to live in the Digital Age, they will at least be prepared to make aware decisions and utilize technology in the most positive ways possible.

Nicholas West writes for ActivistPost.com. He also writes for Counter Markets agorist newsletter. Follow us at Twitter and Steemit.

This article may be freely republished in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Image Credit

Socialism: Opiate Of The Masses, By Jon Rappoport

Socialism: opiate of the masses
by Jon Rappoport
September 1, 2017
socialsimLet’s get something straight. There is no pure form of socialism, where “the government owns the means of production.”
The means of production own the government, and vice versa. It’s always collusion. Elite power players stitch themselves together like a walking Frankenstein corpse.
Socialism can be done with a smile or with guns and jails. Styles vary.
In 1966, Carroll Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope, wrote: “The Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] is the American branch of a society which originated in England [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”
You could call the CFR’s agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or dictatorship—it doesn’t matter. For the sake of brevity, I’ll call it socialism.
At street level (not within the CFR), every proponent of the socialist “solution” either has no idea who installs it and runs it, or he astonishingly believes “the government” can be transformed into a beneficent enterprise and shed its core corruption, as it takes the reins of absolute power.
Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy elites who use socialism as a weapon, while propagandizing it as our humanitarian future, know full well THEY will run it, and they have no qualms about placing severe limits on the freedom of populations. They want to impose those limits.
Hope and Change, the slogan of the former US president, was perfect for street-level socialists. It was vague enough to be injected with their own vague dreams and fantasies.
Colleges—or as I call them, Academies of Great Generalities—have been turning out these fantasists by the ton. “If I feel it, it must be true and good.”
One such idealist, back in the 1960s, was a young man named James Kunen. But smarter by far than most of his comrades, he wrote a book called The Strawberry Statement: Notes on a College Revolutionary. A member of the Left group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Kunen recalled a curious event at the 1968 SDS Convention:
“…at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables—the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government—tried to buy up a few [Leftist] radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.”
“…They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”
Rockefeller elites moving to the political Left? What?
Look at it this way. If you’re a Rockefeller man, what brand of rhetoric are you going to use to sell your con? The “Utopian-better-world-for-the-people (Leftist)”, or the “we-want-mega-corporations-to-cheat-and-lie-and-steal-the-people-blind-and-co-opt-the-government (Rightist)”?
Since any brand of rhetoric is designed to end up in the same place—global control—you’re going to pick the more attractive-sounding version.
It’s simply a matter of workability and expedience.
That’s why the lingo of Leftist socialism has come to the fore.
That’s the only reason.
If a Rockefeller operative could use, to good effect, tales of enemies invading Earth from a parallel universe, he would.
In 1928, the historian Oswald Spengler wrote: “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that [operation has continued] without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”
Is there a college anywhere in the world that acknowledges and teaches this? The insight is not permitted. It would torpedo too many platitudes and reveal too many false trails laid down by elite deceivers.
David Rockefeller, writing his 2003 Memoirs, baldly asserted: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Of course, Rockefeller stopped short of saying he and his colleagues, in the core of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, were using socialism and high-flying utopian rhetoric merely to enlist the Left in his “one-world” cause. He never admitted the notions of “social justice” and “equality” were being peddled to the gullible masses for the same reason.
If he had come clean, victims (both real and self-imagined) would understand they were fighting against the very oppressors who were backing, funding, encouraging, and controlling them.
The sought–after global triumph of socialism is a cover for elite global management and tyranny.
“Thanks for your help. Now that we’ve won, you’re under the gun. Our gun.”
Flashing forward to today, one can see this sales job operating in boardrooms of the tech giants (Google, Facebook, etc.) The corporate leaders (the new Rockefellers and Carnegies) claim they’re proponents of “digital socialism,” which they ludicrously define as open access to the wonders of the Internet for all people everywhere, including the poor and bereft. But the last time I looked, those people can’t eat a YouTube video for a breakfast they can’t afford.
This nonsensical fluff hides the same core buried in old-time socialism: the leaders at the top, who have made their mega-fortunes, want to turn around and eliminate competition. Share and care doesn’t apply to the marketplace. The tech CEOs want to collude with government to gain special favors and benefits their lesser rivals can’t obtain.
“We love everyone and care about everyone, but don’t challenge us. We’re the bosses. We own the game.”
The tech giants want much more. They intend to lead the way, with their government partners, into an even tighter control of information (censorship) and a more vast Surveillance State.
They intend to build a technocratic planet, in which planned societies are the foundation. Citizens are “data-points” to be inserted into slots, from cradle to grave, as a worldwide system is constructed.
Notions of fairness, equality, and other terms of socialism are deployed as a front for this massive operation.
Some might say this version of Brave New World/1984 bears no resemblance to socialism.
But they would be wrong. This version is perfect socialism, once you realize the whole socialist “political philosophy” was never anything more than paper-thin propaganda.
It was a nothing made into something.
It falls apart and blows away, and the skull-grin of control comes into view. The same grin existed in the medieval Roman Church, in the ancient Roman emperorship, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs, in Babylonia, in Sumer, in Mayan and Aztec civilizations, in tribes and clans long buried and forgotten.
Only the language of the sellers to the buyers has changed.
Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung), founding father and ruler of Communist China, openly declared: “Socialism…must have a dictatorship, it will not work without it.” Mao didn’t beat around the bush. In maintaining his dictatorship, he discovered he might have a problem with between 40 and 70 million of his own people. So, just to make sure, he killed them.
But don’t worry, be happy. Less violent socialisms exist in the world—as long as citizens willingly give up their independence.
For example, you could opt for Tony Blair’s vision. Tony is an accused war criminal (Iraq/2003, between 100,000 and million dead), but on the bright side, he didn’t massacre huge numbers of his own people. In 1983, Tony stated:
“I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.”
I’ll let you try to translate that generalized gibberish. Take the words “rational,” “moral,” “co-operation,” “fellowship,” “equality in our economic circumstances,” and run them to ground. Attempt to apply them to actual life. Determine what actual policies and regulations would flow from them.
Tony is one of the deans of the Academy of Great Generalities. He knows how to shovel it on wide and deep. His one skill is appearing earnest and sincere.
He shares that attribute with many of his socialist colleagues. They’ve learned their tricks at the feet of mentors, and you can trace the line all the way back to Plato.
“We’re not Stalin, we’re not Mao. Honest. We want to do good. Help us help you. We’re all in this together. There’s a bright day ahead. Just let us do our work.”
Or as Bill Clinton famously put it, “I feel your pain.”
No one heard him say, under his breath, “Of course, I pay no attention to feelings.”

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/socialism-opiate-of-the-masses/

Socialism: opiate of the masses

Biometric Data Harvesting: NZ soldiers in controversial intelligence-gathering programme in Afghanistan

Here we go guys. Data harvesting taking place in every corner of the globe as the NWO/2030 Agenda marches forward. How does that song line go? “Total control over you…”

 

 

Biometrics Afghanistan

 

 

New Zealand soldiers in Afghanistan took part in a controversial biometric data programme,  The Valley has revealed. New Zealand soldiers helped collect biometric data for a controversial programme the public was never told about.

The revelation comes in the Stuff Circuit documentary series The Valley, which exposes that New Zealand soldiers were involved in the intelligence-gathering programme that the public never knew about. It involved going into villages with a handheld device, taking eye scans and recording fingerprints.

A former top intelligence official in Kabul said the device the New Zealanders were using was one called “Seek”, and that the data was uploaded to ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, which New Zealand forces in Afghanistan operated under, but then shared with the CIA.

Former Chief of Defence Retired Lieutenant General Rhys Jones admitted New Zealand soldiers were involved in the programme throughout their deployment to Afghanistan, but said, “It wasn’t a secret. It was probably just [one] of the things we did we weren’t told back here in New Zealand”.

Though Jones maintains the programme wasn’t a secret, there has been no reporting of it in New Zealand, and a search of Parliamentary records revealed just two obscure references to the use of biometric equipment by the New Zealand Defence Force, and neither were in relation to operations in Afghanistan.

Even a former Minister of Defence, Wayne Mapp, said he did not know about the programme.

Jones justified the biometric data collection as being integral for identifying known or suspected insurgents.Biometric data Afghanistan

“This was a zone that was insecure, we needed to track people. It was almost… ‘martial law’, but the rules of the country at the time were that this is necessary for the Afghan police to know who’s in the area”.

Jones said New Zealand soldiers were focused on males aged 15-70 – the group known as ‘fighting age males’ – and admitted that they also scanned dead people, “to find out who they were, to be able to match that database, so who is this person that’s been killed in a firefight and was carrying a weapon, or was around an IED site? Do we have information on them already?”

In Afghanistan, Stuff Circuit spoke to a former New Zealand patrol commander who also defended the use of biometric data collection, although conceded it was a tough question.

“It’s a useful tool in terms of sorting out who may have involved in incidents and who’s not involved”.

However a former Afghan parliamentarian, Moeen Marastial, questioned New Zealand’s role in the controversial programme, saying “Why are they taking bio data from me if I am innocent?”

He said Afghans knew the New Zealand soldiers’ role in Afghanistan was as part of a Provincial Reconstruction Team. “They are in Afghanistan for reconstruction, for rebuilding, working for the roads, working for the schools, working for the hospitals. That’s why it will be questionable to the people of Afghanistan. Taking biometric data is not reconstruction in Afghanistan.”

Mapp, who was Minister of Defence from 2008-2011, told Stuff Circuit he did not know our soldiers were involved in the programme, but he too defended it, saying, “I’m not entirely surprised either because I suspect they were doing that of people that they might have felt there was a degree of risk and they need to be able to track them and put them in the database.”

He said questioning New Zealand’s involvement in the programme was “frankly naive, because obviously ISAF have to know about the insurgency.”

– Stuff Circuit

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/95901720/nz-soldiers-in-controversial-intelligencegathering-programme-in-afghanistan

The Alternative Hunters, By G Squared

AlternativeThe Alternative Hunters have just been exposed to another ‘Bombshell Exclusive’ by the ill informed, distorter, conspiracy theorist, and paid puppet, Alex Jones. It concerns National Security Advisor McMaster. His sources are what his troupe have previously read in the public domain (NYT, WP, and Bannon’s Breitbart), and Roger Stone. All of which are unreliable, have themselves distorted provenance, and work to other hidden agendas.

Because America is propagandising and manipulating digital media print media will return to prominence.

As I have written; there will never be a Paperless World. As with the move to plastic away from cash; they are recipes for irreversible tyranny. They will all find a balance. Political Truth can no longer be trusted solely to the digital world.
The NSC was formed by Truman to co-ordinate and advise on relevant policies. Its composition is basically Cabinet Members and relevant intel others. If it cannot be moved from a leaktank and purveyor of distorted intel and hidden sectional interest agendas, it must be closed.
McMaster and Kelly (Chief of Staff) even before the latter’s formal appointment; have worked to expunge the industry of Executive Branch Leakers as well as those driving (wittingly or otherwise) agendas, against America’s best interests towards a salient and rational domestic economy and sane foreign policy.
But McMaster is a Soros puppet. The arrangement is that Soros is not going anywhere with his Democratic Party and various idiot brigades in America. Even though Obama and Sanders will be reforming the Clinton Destroyed Democratic Party later this year (2017). And of course, Soros is too heavily invested in disruptive and destructive geo-political agendas to be fully conciliatory with The Trump GOP.
It’s a self-deceiving lie. McMaster and Mueller must go.
Trump is slowly passing through the second phase of his executive ranks. The first was the honour of payoffs for support to win. As those become untenable, they are moved on. The second phase has fewer problematics than the first. It will eventually settle with legitimate believers in The Constitution, that Deep State must be destroyed, and that The People need to be correctly returned to the position of their Constitution; not its various interpretations.
From there The American Domestic Economy can be restored and American Foreign Policy can be moved from its self-destructive agenda to one of legitimate defence. Away from the insanity of empire and hegemony, supremacy, exceptionalism, elitism, and dominance. The miasma that has destroyed all empires, from Egypt to America.
Trump needs to gradually step back from The Middle East hidden Israeli territorial agendas concerning The Greater Israel land grab. Israeli resource developments off The Gaza and in The Golan Heights, are separate issues, and to a shared benefit. It will also move Israel to a self-sufficiency, and away from full dependence on America.
In addition; the voting demographic and party coalition agendas in Israel are changing from radical insertion and manipulation to a rational environment of legitimate mutual peaceful interest. Netanyahu is the end of an era. He is well aware of the changing Israel and its future in a peaceful region. This does not involve any two state solution.
The legitimate fear is not Iran but return to the 1967 borders, and the returns, repatriations, and reparations that would follow. The Trump win is a mutual benefit and saving for Israel.
A pause and protection of borders is different to incessant radicalism and irrational sectarian driven demands.
There are some 17 political parties in Israel and no government (executive) can be formed, without a coalition.
Netanyahu’s idiotic ‘Bomb’ speech concerning Iran to the UN after the massive WMD lie by Powell et al, is only matched by Netanyahu’s interview in a servant’s quarters; where he claimed he lived. Most of the documentary went to air. Including the part where Bibsi could not find what he purported to be his own kitchen.
Israel is the steering mechanism for the Saudi funded, American formed, Islamic Terrorist activities about The Middle East. The activity ranges throughout the northern coast, from Morocco to Turkey, and includes; Mali, Chad, South Sudan, and Yemen. All of which are perceived to compose The New Israel. An advance on The Greater Israel.
Israel is left in relevant peace; if everyone else is fighting each other. It can focus on its domestic and economic issues. At this stage it is unlikely that eras as; 1948, 1967, and 1973 will be revisited. It backed down in its recent attempt to corral Jummah. False Flags are unlikely due to a shared sensitivity of the areas at issue.
The drivers of the self-destructive agenda, want it all. Peace and good citizenship is not an issue. Israel is the next world empire; so they believe. In reality, The EU squandered the opportunity and handed it directly to Russia. As I have written, The EU was The NWO.
In Hungary, Soros is manipulating the socio-political framework. Any objections are countered by the throw away ‘Anti-Semitic’.
Even if the control of The Levant and The Maghreb, were accomplished, it would lead to the control of; The Strait of Gibraltar, The Suez Red Sea, The Persian Gulf, and The Dardanelles. None of which will be accomplished. Even though the current Civil Wars in; Syria, Iraq, and Libya, and the rejected propaganda against Iran, are seen as temporary pauses to the greater illusion.
The other factor is that; although America is predominantly controlled by ‘Jewish’ interests; it is not a future prospect that any of those interests would find better lives in an Israeli destabilised Middle East or the coffee shops of Tel Aviv. And Jewish interests controlling The American Financial Sector, is preferred to Islamic interests.

Gary Cohn
Gary Cohn, Chief Operating Officer of Goldmans (2006-2017) became Trump’s Director of The National Economic Council. In 2018 he will be appointed by Trump to replace the puppet Yellen, as Chairman of The Fed. Although The President decides who he will appoint as Fed Chairman, based on the recommendation of The Fed; he is only given a list of one name.
Fischer was previously moved from Governor of The Bank of Israel to Vice Chairman of The Fed on 16/7/2014.
With both Cohn and Fischer leading The Fed, there is a further strong indication that The American Economy is having difficulty surviving. It is not in the interests of the owners of The Fed, to see the destruction of that which feeds them.
There needs to be distinctions drawn between rational American Jews, the illusions of Zionism, and the activities of radical Israel. Jews want quality peaceful lives. Not some Torah referenced manic driving. The latter is what has caused the problems.

There is not going to be a massive international recall to The Homeland.

The phone call will be answered by “ You have the wrong number“.

The essential survival agendas of 1947, are not the same in 2017 and beyond.

By G Squared, edited by Martin H

Charlottesville: black and white conflict in America, by Jon Rappoport

Protests black-white

Charlottesville: black and white conflict in America
And the solution that almost no one appears to want—why are people allergic to solutions that work?
by Jon Rappoport
August 18, 2017
My tech partner and producer, Theo Wesson, has made several notes on the latest episode of black-white conflict in America, Charlottesville:
“Classic two-pronged Maoist tactic…. (a) shock troops on the ground causing violence and then (b) a sophisticated and coordinated…propaganda push by the parallel rogue state complex of Media, Academia, Hollywood and sold-out politicians. Historically huge. The Police standing down as the [third] element.”
“The violence puts the [television news] viewer in an altered state to receive the propaganda.”
Black vs. white. Nazis vs. liberals. Antifa vs. Alt-Right. Cut the dividing line any way you want to, factor in covert funding by people like George Soros, and you have a formula for escalating conflict between various sectors of society. Thus, driving more chaos.
Present the “sides” in the conflict as somehow representing the entire population of America. That’s the key.
This op is as old as the hills.
As for solutions, let’s start with a revelation about government funding for inner-city programs in St, Petersburg, Florida. The Tampa Bay Times reports:
“…the Tampa Bay Times set out to assess the region’s progress since the turn of the century, analyzing two decades worth of data on income, housing, demographics and crime.”
“Though the city has helped steer hundreds of millions of dollars into the neighborhoods around Midtown since 1999, they remain stuck in poverty.”
“Adjusted for inflation, the average household’s income has gone down.”
“Property values in the neighborhoods have dropped. Only 43 percent of homes in Midtown and Childs Park are owner-occupied, a rate that’s steadily declined since it was 60 percent in 2002.”
“Today, almost half of the region’s renters spend the majority of their income keeping a roof over their heads — nearly twice as many as in 1999.”
“In 2002, the crime rate was four times higher in Midtown and Childs Park [inner-city neighborhoods] than in the rest of the city. In 2014, it was more than five times higher.”
And then, the capper: “From 1999 to 2015, St. Petersburg helped steer over $210 million in private and public investments toward trying to improve life in the Midtown area, city documents show.”
$210 million, and this is what they have to show for it.
You really have to design failure in order to make $210 million worthless.
The answer?
Realize, first of all, that people tend to reject solutions if they haven’t heard about them before.
One solution here would be a program I’ve written about before, and it could be enacted for a tiny fraction of the $210 million that has gone down the drain:
URBAN FARMS.
Across the country, many such operations are underway. They’re happening. Local people are growing and eating their own food. Some of this food is also sold for profit.
—There should be many, many urban farms in the St. Petersburg inner city. Plots of land where local residents grow and trade and eat their own fresh, clean, nutritious food. It is a revolutionary act.
Initiate 50 of these farms. The government provides initial funding. The residents themselves will expand their operations into profit-making ventures; they’ll sell the excess food.
I’m estimating that for less than $5 million, the whole program can be launched—as opposed to the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured down unaccountable “investment” rat holes.
The residents of inner-city St, Petersburg would have a real economic stake in their own survival and success, and they’d escalate the power of their demands for safe neighborhoods—safe from gangs and thugs and drugs.
Clean fresh food.
Improved level of health and strength.
Community involvement.
Increasing production.
Profits.
Of course, governments don’t tend to favor solutions that actually work.
Such solutions reduce citizen dependence on government.
If a certain president in the White House put this urban farm project into effect—not only in St. Petersburg, but in other inner cities across America—and if resistance developed, that president would have a powerful means of exposing the disruptive resistance as a conscious campaign to keep making these neighborhoods fail, IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE AN EXCUSE FOR RACIAL CONFLICT.
A clue: professional paid disruptors, and their duped allies, are hired to expand failure in inner cities and exclude workable solutions that benefit one and all.
Bottom line: there are always solutions that lift people up. Sidelining and canceling and distorting and misdirecting and betraying those solutions is the full-time job of operatives who have a hidden agenda. These operatives want failure. They want to use failure to blame some group(s) for the chronic problem—thus expanding unrest and anger and division.
MAINSTREAM NEWS WILL NEVER REPORT EXTENSIVELY ON LARGE AND WORKABLE SOLUTIONS.
THEREFORE, MANY, MANY CITIZENS (HYPNOTIZED VIEWERS) WILL NEVER BE “TUNED” TO SOLUTIONS.
LARGE WORKABLE SOLUTIONS WILL ALWAYS SEEM AND FEEL “STRANGE” AND OUT OF PLACE.
That’s called mind control.
That’s called passivity.
That’s called surrender.
It’s staged over long periods of time.
One estimate has it that, since President Lyndon Johnson declared a national War on Poverty in 1966, some two trillion dollars have been poured into inner cities of America, with a result that looks quite like the impoverished neighborhoods of St. Petersburg, Florida.
No one has the accounting books. No one has kept track. No one in the federal government has been able to stop the insanity.
Again, innovative solutions are not the aim of big and bigger government.
That aim appears to be: losing.

Charlottesville: black and white conflict in America

Rappoport