Erle Frayne D. Argonza
Europe is on fire. Save for those who choose to be blind, the Union is going through an incendiary economic burn. How far will the economic burning go, whether it will spread to a larger continental inferno, no one can tell for now.
Before the EU’s creation, welfare policies were prevalent from east to west of the continent. Liberal reforms then arose, commencing with the Tory’s (Thatcher era) wholesale adoption and social marketing of the same, and copied by the conservatives and liberals of the continent alike.
By the turn of the century, upon the commencement of the Euro, liberal reforms already saw the uncontrollable ascent of predatory finance worldwide. Liberalized financial-capital markets paved the way for their immanence.
Among those instruments created by the predators was financial derivatives. To recall, a decade back the derivatives markets were already awash with exposures totaling over $150 Trillion, with 36% of these in the hands of British financiers while 15% were in Americans’ hands.
By 2001, the alarming projection was leaked out that derivatives will be inflated to exceed $350 Trillions within the new decade. At a time when the global economy was producing past the $40 Trillion in Gross World Product or GWP, it was sheer madness to consider debt papers of past $350 that could meltdown the globe in case of a gigantic bubble burst.
Europe was already flat on its back for a straight two (2) decades since after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Periodic stagflations and recessions have seen the rise of poverty incidence and, consequently, the re-emergence of neo-fascist movements.
Being strongly tied up to the U.S. economy, it was not surprising to realize that a contagion of the U.S. recession will surely hit Europe, which did happen. The ugly side of the formula was the aiding of ailing banks that were badly affected by the crisis, an intervention that was flawed and immoral as it entails using taxpayers’ money to aid criminal bank speculators.
Barely out of the U.S. contagion effect, Brussels was shocked to see that a new fire had started within the Eurozone— Greece to be exact. As this was happening, Spain also began to sneeze & cough, as some of its own banks (notably Santander) spiraled down bankruptcy scale. Other member-economies were also having their own financial crucifixions going by the early part of this current year.
If we diagnose what’s going on in the financial sectors of member states, we can easily pinpoint banks as hotspot fire sources. They were heavily into speculative pursuits, with enormous exposures to derivative operations.
Just exactly how that happened can be traceable to certain acts in the North by the mid-80s. Commodities markets have sprung up on that decade, even as a global recession took place then, threatening OECD economies. Liberal reforms were already permeating diverse sectors, and within the backdrop of liberalization, financial derivatives and equivalent portfolios were launched in mass scales.
Banks shed off their previous stance of inhibiting themselves from speculative pursuits. Soon they’d find themselves investing into every speculative games they could lay their hands into, inclusive of hedge funds operations.
Now, to fast track to the present, economists estimate that EU’s aggregate derivatives are within the range of $180-$200 Trillions, estimates that seem conservative. Measure this against the gross domestic product of EU at $13 Trillions, and you would be driven to ask: just exactly where will Europe get the funds to pay the hedged financials in case of bursts and massive bankruptcies?
If all of the hedge funds investors would ask for a forced payment of their total of, say, $200 Trillions more or less, who would pay for such debts? Where will the money come from? Is it morally right to extract taxes from European workers to pay up for the dirty debt papers in case? Is it likewise morally right to impose wage cuts on workers who were not the culprits in the virtual economy game in the first place?
Concerned Europeans should better rethink the Euro and ask whether the new currency really worked for their welfare. It is now clearer that the Euro was a sell-out idea and project, that it was launched to satiate the insatiable pockets of greedy financiers represented by the top financial houses there.
And Europeans better see how silly it is to allocate taxpayers’ money worth $1 Trillion to bail out ailing banks and industries hit by the rising meltdown. For measured against total debt papers of $180-200 Trillions, $1 Trillion would be ridiculously paltry.
Yet another ridiculous intervention is the austerity measure imposed by the IMF on Greece. We’ve had so many precedents of the deleterious effects of such measures on developing economies that aimed at eventually graduating from IMF programs as a salvation measure in the short run. While emerging markets are getting out of a burning house (IMF & austerity measures), Greece voluntarily entered this house. Unbelievable!
As per reports reaching my focals, Germany had the greatest exposures to Greece’s banking sector, with exposures running to hundreds of billions of euros. British financiers, on the other hand, have their hands full in Spain’s banks.
It isn’t difficult to forecast that the fire in Greece could spread to other eurozone economies. Not even the UK, which decided to stay out of the eurozone, will be spared from the bonfire. Spain is almost there now, and who knows what country will be next.
If banks and industrial conglomerates will simultaneously burn in all of the member-states of the eurozone, with total aid claims of past the GDP of $13 Trillions, then Europe will be on the brink of a continental inferno.
Concerned readers better think for yourself whether Brussels and the bureaucrats do have the right answers to the raging problems of Europe. Poverty incidences are now hitting past the 20% mark in member countries, while massive lootings of the financial and currency markets by predatory financiers take place every day in the continent.
Well, let’s all wait and see for what happens. Let us hope that a mad Nero bureaucrat wouldn’t appear to orchestrate the burning farther to infernal scale. That would bring a new nightmare to the whole planet if it happens.
[Philippines, 20 May 2010]
[See: IKONOKLAST: http://erleargonza.blogspot.com,
UNLADTAU: http://unladtau.wordpress.com,
COSMICBUHAY: http://cosmicbuhay.blogspot.com,
BRIGHTWORLD: http://erlefraynebrightworld.wordpress.com, ARTBLOG: http://erleargonza.wordpress.com,
ARGONZAPOEM: http://argonzapoem.blogspot.com]
Finalist-PhilBlogAwards 2010
Finalist for society, politics, history blogs
Showing posts with label British Empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Empire. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thursday, December 04, 2008
PAKISTAN’S CREATION, AFGHAN OPIUM: BRITISH TRADE LINKS
Bro. Erle Frayne Argonza
In the name of the Father (British oligarchy), the Son (Pakistan) and of the Holy Spirit (Afghan opium). So mote it be.
Pakistan and India are now on the verge of another war, one that will extend the frontiers of a brewing World War III to the South Asian corridor. Many are befuddled by the events in the region, the continuing animosities among the erstwhile ‘sibling’ neighbors, the latest terror attack on Mumbai, and more to come. Many in India and Pakistan still think that the hostilities are rooted in the Hindu-Islam competition, and/or in the lack of foresight of Nehru for approving the partition plan. Never do they bother at all to reflect about external forces, notably British financier oligarchs, that were responsible for that very faulty partition.
The creation of Pakistan is directly a result of the old British East India Company’s or BEAC’s search for safe opium trade route, in case that Indian independence would galvanize. BEAC enterprises are mired in every kind of underworld financial sources, to say the least, the revenues of which are then used to finance businesses in the aboveground. Among such covert sources were (a) slave trade (Adam Smith was BEAC-hired to design a doctrine that will justify free trade of slaves by the British) and (b) opium trade.
Afghanistan and Burma were then in British hands, and were already prospering on the ground as producers of dope. The main market, to recall, was China, whose drug users were enticed to do so by British agents disguised as Christian missions that introduced the dope deep into Chinese society. When the Indian independence movement was up, the BEAC hierarchy knew that it was only a matter of time before the rest of Western territories in Asia would follow the same route. That was precisely what happened, which proved to be tough in terms of ensuring sustained drug production and the safety of the trade routes toward external markets.
When India was almost a-born, it wasn’t a coincidental event that Moslems within the rising star party (Congress), or those associated with Gandhi and Nehru, would demand for a partition. Behind the scenes, British agents moved quickly to do their appointed tasks of creating divisions within the Indian independence movement, by manipulating Moslem Indians of established esteem who could be their lackeys in a new state whose very purpose is to secure the drug trade route. That new state, supposedly “Moslem”, was to be named as PAKISTAN.
Few people across the globe are aware about why there is so much dope being peddled. Maybe if these folks would just look at themselves, reminisce those moments when one had quaffed about five (5) jiggers of brandy or two (2) glasses of red wine, one gets into a euphoria of sorts and feels like exploding in love for his/her fellows at some instance. Then one would understand why there is so much dope moving around: people simply like it! Or, there is a growing section of the population that loves dope, no matter how dangerous it is to be hooked up into the habit. For as long as people take dope, drug trade will flourish.
And the goal of the drug traders is no less than the legalization of dope across the world. When you have certain states such as the Netherlands that legalized marijuana, then you see the ‘signs of the times’. As anxiety and anomie will rise within an anarchic global context across the coming decades, the possibility of legalizing dope isn’t a far-fetched reality. This is, again, the ultimate goal.
In the meantime, observers have to content themselves with the thought that the drug trade flourishes because it is Big Money. Take the case of my country, the Philippines. Dope here is now the biggest source of underground money, and estimated annual revenues by the manufacturers-traders is as high as P600 Billion. That’s roughly U.S. $14 Billions in nominal value. In Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) value, that amounts to US. $56 Billion.
That is just the Philippines and not Afghanistan, USA, Colombia, Mexico, and China (with Triad groups operating) where dope revenues are higher. The aggregate sums of incomes from all the drug trade in the world would easily reach the Trillions of US Dollars or Euros, a whopping lot! The same monies have easily funded many legitimate businesses, name them: manufacturing, construction, hedge funds, banking, housing, agriculture, shipping, and more. They were even used to fund charities of churches! I need not remind the readers that they are used to fund electoral campaigns by politicians all over the globe, even kindergartens know this.
Now, let’s go back to Pakistan and Afghanistan, these two being interlinked by the British dope trade. The expectation of the traders is that these two should be safe havens, (a) Afghanistan for the production, and (b) Pakistan for the transit/trade. There is also some consumption in both countries, but the main markets are the USA and EU. Both countries should therefore always in the hands of ‘friendly forces’, to ensure undisrupted operations. I need not remind the reader that so much of bribery went into developing new oligarchs and politicians in both countries, in order to ensure ‘friendly forces’ ensconced in all quarters.
When the Soviets and Talibans took over Afghanistan, production was disrupted. Both regimes were unfriendly to dope, and had no second thoughts in razing down ground production. Hundreds of billions of dollars are lost in just three (3) years of ‘enemy forces’ occupation of the ground, which pains the pockets. That served Pakistan good, which, being a ‘friendly force’, was always there to kowtow to the whims of the British and their allies (Americans) who also benefitted immensely from the dope trade.
So, to conclude my piece, the Islam-Hindu conflict has nothing to do with the India-Pakistan partition. Such a conflict was contrived, there was religious tolerance in India since the days yet of the Moguls (who re-instituted tolerance policy), and fundamentalism was never a phenomenon at all. Having reviewed tons of materials on comparative religions, being both sociologist and yogi-mystic, I am very sure about the latter, a phenomenon that was in fact created by the financier oligarchs themselves as smokescreen for their rather noxious trade operations.
As to what forecasts to make, I would leave that to the readers. I’d move on to some other related topics later.
[Writ 04 December 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]
In the name of the Father (British oligarchy), the Son (Pakistan) and of the Holy Spirit (Afghan opium). So mote it be.
Pakistan and India are now on the verge of another war, one that will extend the frontiers of a brewing World War III to the South Asian corridor. Many are befuddled by the events in the region, the continuing animosities among the erstwhile ‘sibling’ neighbors, the latest terror attack on Mumbai, and more to come. Many in India and Pakistan still think that the hostilities are rooted in the Hindu-Islam competition, and/or in the lack of foresight of Nehru for approving the partition plan. Never do they bother at all to reflect about external forces, notably British financier oligarchs, that were responsible for that very faulty partition.
The creation of Pakistan is directly a result of the old British East India Company’s or BEAC’s search for safe opium trade route, in case that Indian independence would galvanize. BEAC enterprises are mired in every kind of underworld financial sources, to say the least, the revenues of which are then used to finance businesses in the aboveground. Among such covert sources were (a) slave trade (Adam Smith was BEAC-hired to design a doctrine that will justify free trade of slaves by the British) and (b) opium trade.
Afghanistan and Burma were then in British hands, and were already prospering on the ground as producers of dope. The main market, to recall, was China, whose drug users were enticed to do so by British agents disguised as Christian missions that introduced the dope deep into Chinese society. When the Indian independence movement was up, the BEAC hierarchy knew that it was only a matter of time before the rest of Western territories in Asia would follow the same route. That was precisely what happened, which proved to be tough in terms of ensuring sustained drug production and the safety of the trade routes toward external markets.
When India was almost a-born, it wasn’t a coincidental event that Moslems within the rising star party (Congress), or those associated with Gandhi and Nehru, would demand for a partition. Behind the scenes, British agents moved quickly to do their appointed tasks of creating divisions within the Indian independence movement, by manipulating Moslem Indians of established esteem who could be their lackeys in a new state whose very purpose is to secure the drug trade route. That new state, supposedly “Moslem”, was to be named as PAKISTAN.
Few people across the globe are aware about why there is so much dope being peddled. Maybe if these folks would just look at themselves, reminisce those moments when one had quaffed about five (5) jiggers of brandy or two (2) glasses of red wine, one gets into a euphoria of sorts and feels like exploding in love for his/her fellows at some instance. Then one would understand why there is so much dope moving around: people simply like it! Or, there is a growing section of the population that loves dope, no matter how dangerous it is to be hooked up into the habit. For as long as people take dope, drug trade will flourish.
And the goal of the drug traders is no less than the legalization of dope across the world. When you have certain states such as the Netherlands that legalized marijuana, then you see the ‘signs of the times’. As anxiety and anomie will rise within an anarchic global context across the coming decades, the possibility of legalizing dope isn’t a far-fetched reality. This is, again, the ultimate goal.
In the meantime, observers have to content themselves with the thought that the drug trade flourishes because it is Big Money. Take the case of my country, the Philippines. Dope here is now the biggest source of underground money, and estimated annual revenues by the manufacturers-traders is as high as P600 Billion. That’s roughly U.S. $14 Billions in nominal value. In Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) value, that amounts to US. $56 Billion.
That is just the Philippines and not Afghanistan, USA, Colombia, Mexico, and China (with Triad groups operating) where dope revenues are higher. The aggregate sums of incomes from all the drug trade in the world would easily reach the Trillions of US Dollars or Euros, a whopping lot! The same monies have easily funded many legitimate businesses, name them: manufacturing, construction, hedge funds, banking, housing, agriculture, shipping, and more. They were even used to fund charities of churches! I need not remind the readers that they are used to fund electoral campaigns by politicians all over the globe, even kindergartens know this.
Now, let’s go back to Pakistan and Afghanistan, these two being interlinked by the British dope trade. The expectation of the traders is that these two should be safe havens, (a) Afghanistan for the production, and (b) Pakistan for the transit/trade. There is also some consumption in both countries, but the main markets are the USA and EU. Both countries should therefore always in the hands of ‘friendly forces’, to ensure undisrupted operations. I need not remind the reader that so much of bribery went into developing new oligarchs and politicians in both countries, in order to ensure ‘friendly forces’ ensconced in all quarters.
When the Soviets and Talibans took over Afghanistan, production was disrupted. Both regimes were unfriendly to dope, and had no second thoughts in razing down ground production. Hundreds of billions of dollars are lost in just three (3) years of ‘enemy forces’ occupation of the ground, which pains the pockets. That served Pakistan good, which, being a ‘friendly force’, was always there to kowtow to the whims of the British and their allies (Americans) who also benefitted immensely from the dope trade.
So, to conclude my piece, the Islam-Hindu conflict has nothing to do with the India-Pakistan partition. Such a conflict was contrived, there was religious tolerance in India since the days yet of the Moguls (who re-instituted tolerance policy), and fundamentalism was never a phenomenon at all. Having reviewed tons of materials on comparative religions, being both sociologist and yogi-mystic, I am very sure about the latter, a phenomenon that was in fact created by the financier oligarchs themselves as smokescreen for their rather noxious trade operations.
As to what forecasts to make, I would leave that to the readers. I’d move on to some other related topics later.
[Writ 04 December 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]
Monday, September 29, 2008
CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY: CAN IT SURVIVE THE COMING ‘TECHNOTRONIC’ CAPITALISM?
Bro. Erle Frayne Argonza
‘Late’ capitalism, this current phase that replaced the ‘monopoly’ capitalism of the pre-war era, is now DEAD. As elucidated by Jurgen Habermas, thinker of the Frankfurt school, capitalism was able to move to its present state but only with massive state planning/intervention. State intervention had since the early 70s been relaxed, via globalization, but this only created monstrous predatory finance that hastened the collapse of the system.
As already elaborated in previous articles, the system is now DEAD. In the late 1990s yet, we Fellows of the Independent Review (a circle of economists and experts in Manila) were of the opinion that the system will be dead in couples of years. The ‘virtual economy’ based on magical statistics, speculation, fictitiously valued investments, and conspicuous consumption, can never be sustained, and is bound to crash and die. It was just a matter of time, as we all noted in 2000 (the last time I met the Fellows), before the bubble will burst somewhere (we forecast it will the USA) and the global economy will come crashing down…And it did, beginning last 2007 yet. That descent to the marshes of death is still going on today.
As I also declared in some previous articles, capitalism can still survive, though no longer the ‘late’ capitalism of state planning-to-globalization era. It will be a capitalism in an era of state terror heretofore unparalleled: ‘technotronic’ capitalism in the aegis of global police-state. Nation-states are enemies of the global oligarchy which will re-engineer the world by destroying nations (aftermath of atrocious World War III and global synarchy) and replacing them with city-states and region-states.
If corporate social responsibility or CSR will survive the times, it must be re-tooled at this juncture when the tumultuous changes are gathering winds. Failure to do so, many CSR pursuits will disappear in time, while only those CSR platforms of the most powerful and wealthy oligarchs can survive. All the CSR formats of today can last in relevance maybe till 2040 at the most, after which my forecast is their relevance will have reached its end.
By the year 2050, when populations will have leveled down to a census target of 2 Billion warm bodies, a figure that will be more manageable to the global elites, every member of society will be chipped and provided for. By that time, there will be no further need for ideological movements as Pied Pipers of the new system. Everyone else will be programmed by the system, from cradle to grave the chipped Manchurian Candidate or MC will be provided for. Poverty will end by then, the Millenium Development Goal of the UN will be finally met (the UN will be transformed into the tyrannical global state headed by a global Bonaparte, armed with its own police/military forces), and then will end the ‘sustainable development’ or ‘social development’ pursuits of ‘late’ capitalism.
The chipped Manchurian Candidate or MC will be half-human half-machine hybrid, and will be well provided for as mentioned. Population will be totally controlled, weak and senior members of the population will be ‘oven-baked’ or eliminated, natality will be controlled following China’s pattern of today, criminality will be almost nil, and no one will ever be poor again. Hybrid-human behavior can be easily modified using those advanced cybernetic prototype programs past 2050, and so nobody can fool around with the system.
Tell me, fellows, in a situation such as that coming context of advanced cybernetics or ‘technotronics’ (machine-controlled humans), what need will there be for CSR? Maybe CSR will go back to Victorian Era philanthropy practices, whereby wealthy sponsors will fund the theaters and chipped performers whose performances will be perfected all the more by cybernetics. The staff of the CSR formats of that era, if indeed applicable, will be chipped as well, like those outfits that will be funded because they will perform before the oligarchic-intellectual crowd by then.
When that next capitalist system comes, there will be no more activists or revolutionaries save for those who will proclaim Hallelujah forever to the radically altered, new system. Libertarian activists will be the species of yesteryears, the CSR proto-activism of today will be consigned to history, and anybody who will go against the system will be easily eliminated by sentinel robots of the most advanced prototypes.
Let me end with the challenge: CSR better retool now and reshape its image if it desires to exceed its institutional career. Now is the time.
[28 August 2008,Quezon City, MetroManila]
‘Late’ capitalism, this current phase that replaced the ‘monopoly’ capitalism of the pre-war era, is now DEAD. As elucidated by Jurgen Habermas, thinker of the Frankfurt school, capitalism was able to move to its present state but only with massive state planning/intervention. State intervention had since the early 70s been relaxed, via globalization, but this only created monstrous predatory finance that hastened the collapse of the system.
As already elaborated in previous articles, the system is now DEAD. In the late 1990s yet, we Fellows of the Independent Review (a circle of economists and experts in Manila) were of the opinion that the system will be dead in couples of years. The ‘virtual economy’ based on magical statistics, speculation, fictitiously valued investments, and conspicuous consumption, can never be sustained, and is bound to crash and die. It was just a matter of time, as we all noted in 2000 (the last time I met the Fellows), before the bubble will burst somewhere (we forecast it will the USA) and the global economy will come crashing down…And it did, beginning last 2007 yet. That descent to the marshes of death is still going on today.
As I also declared in some previous articles, capitalism can still survive, though no longer the ‘late’ capitalism of state planning-to-globalization era. It will be a capitalism in an era of state terror heretofore unparalleled: ‘technotronic’ capitalism in the aegis of global police-state. Nation-states are enemies of the global oligarchy which will re-engineer the world by destroying nations (aftermath of atrocious World War III and global synarchy) and replacing them with city-states and region-states.
If corporate social responsibility or CSR will survive the times, it must be re-tooled at this juncture when the tumultuous changes are gathering winds. Failure to do so, many CSR pursuits will disappear in time, while only those CSR platforms of the most powerful and wealthy oligarchs can survive. All the CSR formats of today can last in relevance maybe till 2040 at the most, after which my forecast is their relevance will have reached its end.
By the year 2050, when populations will have leveled down to a census target of 2 Billion warm bodies, a figure that will be more manageable to the global elites, every member of society will be chipped and provided for. By that time, there will be no further need for ideological movements as Pied Pipers of the new system. Everyone else will be programmed by the system, from cradle to grave the chipped Manchurian Candidate or MC will be provided for. Poverty will end by then, the Millenium Development Goal of the UN will be finally met (the UN will be transformed into the tyrannical global state headed by a global Bonaparte, armed with its own police/military forces), and then will end the ‘sustainable development’ or ‘social development’ pursuits of ‘late’ capitalism.
The chipped Manchurian Candidate or MC will be half-human half-machine hybrid, and will be well provided for as mentioned. Population will be totally controlled, weak and senior members of the population will be ‘oven-baked’ or eliminated, natality will be controlled following China’s pattern of today, criminality will be almost nil, and no one will ever be poor again. Hybrid-human behavior can be easily modified using those advanced cybernetic prototype programs past 2050, and so nobody can fool around with the system.
Tell me, fellows, in a situation such as that coming context of advanced cybernetics or ‘technotronics’ (machine-controlled humans), what need will there be for CSR? Maybe CSR will go back to Victorian Era philanthropy practices, whereby wealthy sponsors will fund the theaters and chipped performers whose performances will be perfected all the more by cybernetics. The staff of the CSR formats of that era, if indeed applicable, will be chipped as well, like those outfits that will be funded because they will perform before the oligarchic-intellectual crowd by then.
When that next capitalist system comes, there will be no more activists or revolutionaries save for those who will proclaim Hallelujah forever to the radically altered, new system. Libertarian activists will be the species of yesteryears, the CSR proto-activism of today will be consigned to history, and anybody who will go against the system will be easily eliminated by sentinel robots of the most advanced prototypes.
Let me end with the challenge: CSR better retool now and reshape its image if it desires to exceed its institutional career. Now is the time.
[28 August 2008,Quezon City, MetroManila]
Sunday, September 07, 2008
ADAM SMITH: ‘INTELLECTUAL PROSTITUTE’ FOR BRITISH EAST INDIA & SLAVE TRADERS
Bro. Erle Frayne Argonza
Amigos y Amigas, Buenos dias! Magandang umaga! Good morning!
The title of this briefer may come as a shock to all those who pretend to know Adam Smith and, more so, for those who revere Mr. Smith as a cult Icon. Just to clarify to everyone, being a political economist and ‘economic sociologist’, I hold Smith personally in high esteem as an intellectual, and this briefer is not meant to flaunt irreverence on this gentleman. Smith’s place in economic history is already granite rock, no matter if laissez faire or physiocracy has become obsolete before World War II yet.
The thing is, fact of all facts, contemporary thinkers such as those guys from the ‘Chicago school’, led by Nobel notable J. Friedman (weren’t there Nobel winners who were demented, nay demonic in mindset? E.g biologist Watson, who claimed that Blacks are genetically inferior in mental intelligence). The revival of laissez faire, as one can see, was responsible for flawed policy regimes that led to the series of short cycle crisis since the early 70s yet, and which is now leading finally to the Great Depression that will mark the death blow to liberal capitalism that is now on its terminal phase. From this point of time onwards, there can be no more return to laissez faire without bringing back humanity to a catastrophic Dark Age reminiscent of that demonic age of the Medieval Era when sanity fled humanity for nigh 200 year at least.
I used to be a Fellow of the Independent Review circle here in Manila, a circle of eminent and illustrious intellectuals and business leaders (I was the only humble fellow here in the 1990s). Unfortunately, this group disbanded in 2002, due perhaps to methodological differences (I was active only till 2001 when I left for the USA for about a year). Entry to this group was by invitation, and that was how I got wind up of it: a female student of mine at the De La Salle University (DLSU Manila) had some of my articles (readings in class) read by his father, the Undersecretary Butch Valdez (Dept of Education) who in turn extended the invitation to the Independent Review circle thru her daughter.
Within the circle, it was Butch Valdez, the eminent Principal of the Valdez & Co that is one of the Philippines’ top auditing firms, who studied with intensity the physiocratic paradigm. He came across various readings about the life and works of Adam Smith, and wrote series of articles in the Independent Review (a journal-type magazine) in ‘97 and ‘98. Being among DLSU’s privileged coterie of most brilliant alumni, Valdez’s most revealing inquiry—Smith’s being a paid intellectual for the slave traders—did come as a shock to me, though it doesn’t shock me anymore that intellectuals do prostitute themselves before high paying clients (Antonio Gramsi and Edward Said devoted kilometric pages about intellectuals, both the ‘organic’ and the ‘autonomous’ types).
The research findings of Mr. Valdez concerning Mr. Smith can be summed up as follows:
· Previous to the years before the ascent to eminence of Smith, slave trade and the British East India Co or BEIC were among the accepted economic modalities. Needless to say, the BEIC was engaged in the trading of slaves. [Actually, my research went beyond that, as the same BEIC was also engaged in the DRUG TRADE, in the opium trade, and had an army of its own separate yet from the King’s army.]
· Physiocracy, which bannered ‘free enterprise’, was especially important for the BEIC and related monopolistic imperial groups since the paradigm promoted ‘free trade’ as well. Laissez faire was in a clash with mercantilism’s dirigist policy regime, remember, as it was also opposed to mercantilism’s promotion of industrialism even as laissez faire championed agriculturalism and the ulterior interests of the landlord class. Needless to say, physiocracy championed the cause of the gentry or big planter landlord and was scornful of the industrial class (in the Philippines there is nary a disjunction between ‘landlord’ and ‘industrial’ interests anyway, they are in conjunct.)
· At that historic juncture when the British Empire was expanding and eclipsing its power, the BEIC desired to optimize its profits from out of diverse trading engagements, most of all for optimizing the slave trade. It need not belabored that slaves were tied up to colonial plantations, and plantation economy was the only modality permitted by the British Monarchy as the definitive economic formation for the ‘4th world’ peripheries (colonies). The BEIC engagements’ optimization can best be done by procuring the services of intellectual mercenaries who could articulate in sophistical vogue the very doctrinal expectations of the Lords of the BEIC Hierarchy (a ‘Committee of 300’, per my research findings).
· It was precisely at that juncture of expanded slave trade when the BEIC’s talent scouts eyed the services of a Scottish gentleman, named Adam Smith, who could fit into the mental Pied Piper prototype for BEIC enslavement pursuits. It would be no wise to contend that Smith was a mental robot or ‘Manchurian Candidate’ controlled by overlords behind the scenes, for Smith was a man of his own mind, and up to the last instance he was indeed that ‘organic intellectual’ for the slave traders. He just couldn’t qualify as ‘independent intellectual’ though, for Smith was, in the yardsticks of the autonomous intellectuals, a ‘prostituted intellectual’ or ‘intellectual prostitute’.
The rest was history. Both the erudite and simpleton among the schooled populations of Earth know what Smith’s economic doctrine is all about. And many folks today are aware that the neo-liberal policy regime of the moment was a rehash of the same Smithian physiocracy.
I do wish that I could converse with Antonio Gramsci face-to-face today and request this noblesse thinker whether the term ‘intellectual prostitute’ is appropriate an inference for Adam Smith. I might have erred in judgement. Mr. Smith was a willing party to the enslavement, plunder and looting by the British oligarchs, and this ‘willing party to’ aspect may cancel out my inference altogether. Sous rapture, to quote Jacques Derrida.
At any rate, I have shared my notes, and thanks to the gentleman Butch Valdez for his inquiries shared to our circle. Thanks to Gramsci and Said too for their recondite peregrinations about intellectuals. Fellows, I hereby leave the inferential option to you, to decide whether Smith was indeed ‘intellectual prostitute’. Have a nice day!
[Writ 21 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila.]
Amigos y Amigas, Buenos dias! Magandang umaga! Good morning!
The title of this briefer may come as a shock to all those who pretend to know Adam Smith and, more so, for those who revere Mr. Smith as a cult Icon. Just to clarify to everyone, being a political economist and ‘economic sociologist’, I hold Smith personally in high esteem as an intellectual, and this briefer is not meant to flaunt irreverence on this gentleman. Smith’s place in economic history is already granite rock, no matter if laissez faire or physiocracy has become obsolete before World War II yet.
The thing is, fact of all facts, contemporary thinkers such as those guys from the ‘Chicago school’, led by Nobel notable J. Friedman (weren’t there Nobel winners who were demented, nay demonic in mindset? E.g biologist Watson, who claimed that Blacks are genetically inferior in mental intelligence). The revival of laissez faire, as one can see, was responsible for flawed policy regimes that led to the series of short cycle crisis since the early 70s yet, and which is now leading finally to the Great Depression that will mark the death blow to liberal capitalism that is now on its terminal phase. From this point of time onwards, there can be no more return to laissez faire without bringing back humanity to a catastrophic Dark Age reminiscent of that demonic age of the Medieval Era when sanity fled humanity for nigh 200 year at least.
I used to be a Fellow of the Independent Review circle here in Manila, a circle of eminent and illustrious intellectuals and business leaders (I was the only humble fellow here in the 1990s). Unfortunately, this group disbanded in 2002, due perhaps to methodological differences (I was active only till 2001 when I left for the USA for about a year). Entry to this group was by invitation, and that was how I got wind up of it: a female student of mine at the De La Salle University (DLSU Manila) had some of my articles (readings in class) read by his father, the Undersecretary Butch Valdez (Dept of Education) who in turn extended the invitation to the Independent Review circle thru her daughter.
Within the circle, it was Butch Valdez, the eminent Principal of the Valdez & Co that is one of the Philippines’ top auditing firms, who studied with intensity the physiocratic paradigm. He came across various readings about the life and works of Adam Smith, and wrote series of articles in the Independent Review (a journal-type magazine) in ‘97 and ‘98. Being among DLSU’s privileged coterie of most brilliant alumni, Valdez’s most revealing inquiry—Smith’s being a paid intellectual for the slave traders—did come as a shock to me, though it doesn’t shock me anymore that intellectuals do prostitute themselves before high paying clients (Antonio Gramsi and Edward Said devoted kilometric pages about intellectuals, both the ‘organic’ and the ‘autonomous’ types).
The research findings of Mr. Valdez concerning Mr. Smith can be summed up as follows:
· Previous to the years before the ascent to eminence of Smith, slave trade and the British East India Co or BEIC were among the accepted economic modalities. Needless to say, the BEIC was engaged in the trading of slaves. [Actually, my research went beyond that, as the same BEIC was also engaged in the DRUG TRADE, in the opium trade, and had an army of its own separate yet from the King’s army.]
· Physiocracy, which bannered ‘free enterprise’, was especially important for the BEIC and related monopolistic imperial groups since the paradigm promoted ‘free trade’ as well. Laissez faire was in a clash with mercantilism’s dirigist policy regime, remember, as it was also opposed to mercantilism’s promotion of industrialism even as laissez faire championed agriculturalism and the ulterior interests of the landlord class. Needless to say, physiocracy championed the cause of the gentry or big planter landlord and was scornful of the industrial class (in the Philippines there is nary a disjunction between ‘landlord’ and ‘industrial’ interests anyway, they are in conjunct.)
· At that historic juncture when the British Empire was expanding and eclipsing its power, the BEIC desired to optimize its profits from out of diverse trading engagements, most of all for optimizing the slave trade. It need not belabored that slaves were tied up to colonial plantations, and plantation economy was the only modality permitted by the British Monarchy as the definitive economic formation for the ‘4th world’ peripheries (colonies). The BEIC engagements’ optimization can best be done by procuring the services of intellectual mercenaries who could articulate in sophistical vogue the very doctrinal expectations of the Lords of the BEIC Hierarchy (a ‘Committee of 300’, per my research findings).
· It was precisely at that juncture of expanded slave trade when the BEIC’s talent scouts eyed the services of a Scottish gentleman, named Adam Smith, who could fit into the mental Pied Piper prototype for BEIC enslavement pursuits. It would be no wise to contend that Smith was a mental robot or ‘Manchurian Candidate’ controlled by overlords behind the scenes, for Smith was a man of his own mind, and up to the last instance he was indeed that ‘organic intellectual’ for the slave traders. He just couldn’t qualify as ‘independent intellectual’ though, for Smith was, in the yardsticks of the autonomous intellectuals, a ‘prostituted intellectual’ or ‘intellectual prostitute’.
The rest was history. Both the erudite and simpleton among the schooled populations of Earth know what Smith’s economic doctrine is all about. And many folks today are aware that the neo-liberal policy regime of the moment was a rehash of the same Smithian physiocracy.
I do wish that I could converse with Antonio Gramsci face-to-face today and request this noblesse thinker whether the term ‘intellectual prostitute’ is appropriate an inference for Adam Smith. I might have erred in judgement. Mr. Smith was a willing party to the enslavement, plunder and looting by the British oligarchs, and this ‘willing party to’ aspect may cancel out my inference altogether. Sous rapture, to quote Jacques Derrida.
At any rate, I have shared my notes, and thanks to the gentleman Butch Valdez for his inquiries shared to our circle. Thanks to Gramsci and Said too for their recondite peregrinations about intellectuals. Fellows, I hereby leave the inferential option to you, to decide whether Smith was indeed ‘intellectual prostitute’. Have a nice day!
[Writ 21 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila.]
Friday, August 29, 2008
GEORGIA LEADERS: VASSALS OF ANGLO-EUROPEAN OLIGARCHY
Bro. Erle Frayne Argonza
It may behoove many folks to conclude that the recent Georgia-Russia conflict was an isolated event that has got to do largely with the localized problem in South Ossetia. Before the folks would make their conclusions and curse Russia to the hilt, they better take note of the facts well, most specially those facts related to the Georgia leadership’s direct connections with the Anglo-European oligarchy that installed the same leadership to power.
There has been the persistent view from the source, the Executive Intelligence Review, of the British oligarchy as the core cabal behind the various hostilities in the world today, a view that I don’t exactly share. I am of the opinion that the British, who work largely through their empire network (Commonwealth of Nations), are mere middlemen for a more secretive elite circle that is centered in the Teutonic-Frankish-Venetian bloodline of financiers.
At any rate, the oligarchs do comprise a network of interlocking interests working out to completely dominate the planet, launch a new world war, and install a global government by converting their main creation, the United Nations, into the global regulatory institution and harbinger of the ‘world rule of law’ to conserve that perpetuate that same oligarchic power based on global totalitarian arrangements.
Below is a report from the Executive Intelligence Review concerning the connections of the Georgia leadership to the George Soros circle.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
================================================================
British and Soros Stooges in the Georgia Regime
Aug. 11, 2008 (EIRNS)—The following press release was issued today by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee.
Ongoing research has thus far identified the following British and Soros stooges in the current government of Georgia:
1) Prime Minister: Vladimir "Lado" Gurgenidze
A British empire banker, citizen of the United Kingdom.
Born 1970, Tbilisi, Georgia. Beginning in 1997 he worked for the Anglo-Dutch giant bank ABN Amro, living in London 1998-2003. From 1997-1998 he directed the bank's corporate finance operations in Russia and neighboring countries. Among the ABN AMRO conquests was its "twinning project" ensnaring the Bank of Georgia, which had been privatized in 1994-95. From 1998-2000 Grugenidze was ABN AMRO's Director and Head of Mergers and Acquisitions in the Emerging European Markets.
After the 2003 Soros "Rose Revolution" he returned to Georgia and was chief executive (2004-2006) for the Bank of Georgia, in line with the joint UNDP-Soros structural/financial reorganization program for the country ("capacity-building"). Gurgenidze brought in a management team from ABN AMRO and other British-connected banks.
Gurgenidze was appointed Prime Minister and head of the government in November 2007.
2) Head of the National Security Council: Alexander Lomaia
A longtime top executive of George Soros operatons in Georgia, now overseeing the country's military operations.
In 2003-2004, Lomaia was Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation (Soros Foundation). He "directed the foundation's operational grantmaking and administrative activities, and fulfillment of its annual overall budget of more than $2,500.000. Supervised the staff of up to 50 program, finance, and administrative employees."
In 2003-2004, Lomaia was regional director for the former Soviet Union for the Open Society institute's "Democracy Coalition Project". He "facilitated NGO coalition-building in the newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union to promote an activist democratic reform agenda.... The project facilitated the creation of an international federation of the national coalitions which collectively pursued ... democratic reforms on the international stage."
3) Chairman, Georgia Parliament Committee for Eurointegration: David Darchiashvili
Former Executive Director, Open Society Georgia Foundation.
Darchiashvili has worked for the Soros-dominated NGO networks since 1992, primarily in the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, a "partner institution" to the Soros Open Society Institute (among its achievements were publishing a Georgian translaton of neoconservatve Francis Fukuyama's " "The End of the History and the Last Man").
Darchiashvili was executive director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation in the period (approximately) 2006-2007, apparently succeeding now-prime minister Gurgenidze as head of Soros operations in Georgia. In his present position he coordinates the Parliamentary institutions in Georgia with the British/Soros plans for the European Union, in conjunction with such channels as the Soros "European Council on Foreign Relations."
It may behoove many folks to conclude that the recent Georgia-Russia conflict was an isolated event that has got to do largely with the localized problem in South Ossetia. Before the folks would make their conclusions and curse Russia to the hilt, they better take note of the facts well, most specially those facts related to the Georgia leadership’s direct connections with the Anglo-European oligarchy that installed the same leadership to power.
There has been the persistent view from the source, the Executive Intelligence Review, of the British oligarchy as the core cabal behind the various hostilities in the world today, a view that I don’t exactly share. I am of the opinion that the British, who work largely through their empire network (Commonwealth of Nations), are mere middlemen for a more secretive elite circle that is centered in the Teutonic-Frankish-Venetian bloodline of financiers.
At any rate, the oligarchs do comprise a network of interlocking interests working out to completely dominate the planet, launch a new world war, and install a global government by converting their main creation, the United Nations, into the global regulatory institution and harbinger of the ‘world rule of law’ to conserve that perpetuate that same oligarchic power based on global totalitarian arrangements.
Below is a report from the Executive Intelligence Review concerning the connections of the Georgia leadership to the George Soros circle.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
================================================================
British and Soros Stooges in the Georgia Regime
Aug. 11, 2008 (EIRNS)—The following press release was issued today by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee.
Ongoing research has thus far identified the following British and Soros stooges in the current government of Georgia:
1) Prime Minister: Vladimir "Lado" Gurgenidze
A British empire banker, citizen of the United Kingdom.
Born 1970, Tbilisi, Georgia. Beginning in 1997 he worked for the Anglo-Dutch giant bank ABN Amro, living in London 1998-2003. From 1997-1998 he directed the bank's corporate finance operations in Russia and neighboring countries. Among the ABN AMRO conquests was its "twinning project" ensnaring the Bank of Georgia, which had been privatized in 1994-95. From 1998-2000 Grugenidze was ABN AMRO's Director and Head of Mergers and Acquisitions in the Emerging European Markets.
After the 2003 Soros "Rose Revolution" he returned to Georgia and was chief executive (2004-2006) for the Bank of Georgia, in line with the joint UNDP-Soros structural/financial reorganization program for the country ("capacity-building"). Gurgenidze brought in a management team from ABN AMRO and other British-connected banks.
Gurgenidze was appointed Prime Minister and head of the government in November 2007.
2) Head of the National Security Council: Alexander Lomaia
A longtime top executive of George Soros operatons in Georgia, now overseeing the country's military operations.
In 2003-2004, Lomaia was Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation (Soros Foundation). He "directed the foundation's operational grantmaking and administrative activities, and fulfillment of its annual overall budget of more than $2,500.000. Supervised the staff of up to 50 program, finance, and administrative employees."
In 2003-2004, Lomaia was regional director for the former Soviet Union for the Open Society institute's "Democracy Coalition Project". He "facilitated NGO coalition-building in the newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union to promote an activist democratic reform agenda.... The project facilitated the creation of an international federation of the national coalitions which collectively pursued ... democratic reforms on the international stage."
3) Chairman, Georgia Parliament Committee for Eurointegration: David Darchiashvili
Former Executive Director, Open Society Georgia Foundation.
Darchiashvili has worked for the Soros-dominated NGO networks since 1992, primarily in the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, a "partner institution" to the Soros Open Society Institute (among its achievements were publishing a Georgian translaton of neoconservatve Francis Fukuyama's " "The End of the History and the Last Man").
Darchiashvili was executive director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation in the period (approximately) 2006-2007, apparently succeeding now-prime minister Gurgenidze as head of Soros operations in Georgia. In his present position he coordinates the Parliamentary institutions in Georgia with the British/Soros plans for the European Union, in conjunction with such channels as the Soros "European Council on Foreign Relations."
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
SOROS MANIPULATING WORLD WAR III START UP VIA GEORGIA
Bro. Erle Frayne Argonza
Just exactly what is the overall purpose of the recent Georgia-Russia conflict within the broad context of the agenda of the global oligarchy? Does it have to do with the broad war that was hatched that will begin in the Middle East, with the oligarchic proxy vassal-states taking sides in the conflict? Was the conflict a mere acid test case by the same elites to assess the offensive capabilities of Russia at this juncture?
Below is a report from the Executive Intelligence Review which lends credence to the thesis of NATO forces being honed for that larger forthcoming war. George Soros, the bagman for dozens of financier oligarchs of Europe, was identified as a key operator in fomenting the latest conflict in Central Asia that pitted the oligarchic vassal Georgia with Russia.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
========================================
LaRouche Denounces `Obama's Godfather' George Soros Behind Attempt To Start World War III in the Caucasus
Aug. 10, 2008 (EIRNS)—This release was issued yesterday by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).
Lyndon LaRouche today denounced British agent George Soros, for his hand in the ongoing London-led efforts to trigger World War III in the Caucasus. Soros is the financial and political godfather of both Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and the purported Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). In the late hours of Aug. 7, as President Saakashvili completed a nationwide television address, claiming to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis in the autonomous region of South Ossetia, he in fact ordered Georgian troops to fire on Russian peacekeepers, who were in South Ossetia as part of a United Nations mandated force, that has been there since 1994. President Saakashvili's actions now threaten to trigger World War III—precisely what the British intend as their response to the collapse of their post-Bretton Woods international financial system.
"If you want a preview of what the United States would be like under a President Obama, just look at Georgia's recent actions. Georgian President Saakashvili, like Barack Obama, is owned by the same British godfather—George Soros." LaRouche asked: "Would Soros' man Obama be another Dick Cheney if he got into office?"
Soros' own Open Society Institute boasts that it was the backbone of the so-called "Rose Revolution" that swept Saakashvili into power in 2003-2004. As of January 2004, the Soros Open Society Institute, which first set up its office in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, in 1994, began directly bankrolling the Georgian government, as part of a joint program with the United Nations' UNDP (United Nations Development Program), then headed by Mark Malloch Brown, who is now secretary general of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Malloch Brown was so close to Soros, during his tenure at the UN, that he lived in an apartment he rented from the hedge fund speculator.
Saakashvili's reckless provocations, in firing on Russian troops and killing South Ossetian civilians, who are predominantly Russian citizens, drew a strong military response from Russia, which is bound, under its constitution, to defend Russian citizens under attack. The British have been behind the destabilization of the Caucasus region since the collapse of the Soviet Union, funding and arming Chechen rebels, allowing recruitment into the Chechen separatist movements, at mosques in England, and providing safe haven to Russian Mafiya figures, like Boris Berezovsky, who bankrolled anti-Russian separatist and terrorist operations in the Caucasus.
"Now, look at the vast Soros cash flow into Obama," LaRouche concluded. "Soros is a British agent, under the control of British foreign intelligence and special operations services. He is used by them. His sources of funds, after his initial bankrolling by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild banking interests, are murky, at best. Soros is part of Britain's new opium war apparatus—and he virtually owns Senator Obama. And now he is fomenting world war provocations against Moscow, at precisely the moment that I am calling on Russia, China, and India to join the United States in creating a new international financial system that would wipe out speculators like Soros altogether."
Just exactly what is the overall purpose of the recent Georgia-Russia conflict within the broad context of the agenda of the global oligarchy? Does it have to do with the broad war that was hatched that will begin in the Middle East, with the oligarchic proxy vassal-states taking sides in the conflict? Was the conflict a mere acid test case by the same elites to assess the offensive capabilities of Russia at this juncture?
Below is a report from the Executive Intelligence Review which lends credence to the thesis of NATO forces being honed for that larger forthcoming war. George Soros, the bagman for dozens of financier oligarchs of Europe, was identified as a key operator in fomenting the latest conflict in Central Asia that pitted the oligarchic vassal Georgia with Russia.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
========================================
LaRouche Denounces `Obama's Godfather' George Soros Behind Attempt To Start World War III in the Caucasus
Aug. 10, 2008 (EIRNS)—This release was issued yesterday by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).
Lyndon LaRouche today denounced British agent George Soros, for his hand in the ongoing London-led efforts to trigger World War III in the Caucasus. Soros is the financial and political godfather of both Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and the purported Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). In the late hours of Aug. 7, as President Saakashvili completed a nationwide television address, claiming to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis in the autonomous region of South Ossetia, he in fact ordered Georgian troops to fire on Russian peacekeepers, who were in South Ossetia as part of a United Nations mandated force, that has been there since 1994. President Saakashvili's actions now threaten to trigger World War III—precisely what the British intend as their response to the collapse of their post-Bretton Woods international financial system.
"If you want a preview of what the United States would be like under a President Obama, just look at Georgia's recent actions. Georgian President Saakashvili, like Barack Obama, is owned by the same British godfather—George Soros." LaRouche asked: "Would Soros' man Obama be another Dick Cheney if he got into office?"
Soros' own Open Society Institute boasts that it was the backbone of the so-called "Rose Revolution" that swept Saakashvili into power in 2003-2004. As of January 2004, the Soros Open Society Institute, which first set up its office in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, in 1994, began directly bankrolling the Georgian government, as part of a joint program with the United Nations' UNDP (United Nations Development Program), then headed by Mark Malloch Brown, who is now secretary general of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Malloch Brown was so close to Soros, during his tenure at the UN, that he lived in an apartment he rented from the hedge fund speculator.
Saakashvili's reckless provocations, in firing on Russian troops and killing South Ossetian civilians, who are predominantly Russian citizens, drew a strong military response from Russia, which is bound, under its constitution, to defend Russian citizens under attack. The British have been behind the destabilization of the Caucasus region since the collapse of the Soviet Union, funding and arming Chechen rebels, allowing recruitment into the Chechen separatist movements, at mosques in England, and providing safe haven to Russian Mafiya figures, like Boris Berezovsky, who bankrolled anti-Russian separatist and terrorist operations in the Caucasus.
"Now, look at the vast Soros cash flow into Obama," LaRouche concluded. "Soros is a British agent, under the control of British foreign intelligence and special operations services. He is used by them. His sources of funds, after his initial bankrolling by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild banking interests, are murky, at best. Soros is part of Britain's new opium war apparatus—and he virtually owns Senator Obama. And now he is fomenting world war provocations against Moscow, at precisely the moment that I am calling on Russia, China, and India to join the United States in creating a new international financial system that would wipe out speculators like Soros altogether."
EURO-OLIGARCHIC OPERATORS BEHIND GEORGIA CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA
Bro. Erle Frayne Argonza
Good morning!
Going back to the recent Georgia-Russia conflict, which is actually a mere dress rehearsal of NATO for its future big war upon the installation of a totalitarian North Atlantic Empire in the near future, the thesis was raised that Georgia had turned itself into a (b) vassal-state of the Anglo-European oligarchy (or ‘global oligarchy’) and (b) was the same elite’s surrogate it its conflict with Russia.
It would pay to know just exactly who are the people involved behind the scene as operators for the global oligarchy for its latest synarchy engagement in Central Asia. Analysts connected with the Executive Intelligence Review were able to identify one named Mark Brown, who works for the same elites through his sponsor George Soros.
Below is a news item from that details the information about the oligarchic operators involved in the aforesaid conflict.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
===================================================================================
Mark `Moloch' Brown: The Empire's Coup Man in Georgia
Aug. 12, 2008 (EIRNS)—
There is good reason for the British Empire's silence about the attack by Mikhail Saakashvili's Georgia on South Ossetia on Aug. 7, an attack that brought the world to the brink of World War III. Saakashvili was put in power by the duo of British agents—billionaire speculator and Nazi collaborator, George Soros, and Lord Mark Malloch Brown, now the United Kingdom's Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations for the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). And, by tracking the records of the UN Development Program (UNDP) which Malloch Brown administered, and Soros's Open Society Institute and its offshoots, the proverbial check stubs will be found.
Lord Malloch Brown has been in the business of overthrowing governments since 1986, when he left the London Economist for the international section of an agressive political consulting firm in the U.S. called Sawyer Miller, and from there advised the Presidential campaign of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines. He stuck with Aquino through the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, a role about which he boasts. In 1990, he represented the Presidential campaign of Peruvian fascist novelist Mario Varga Llosa, a drug legalization advocate, who lost the election after proposing a vicious austerity program to cut the living standards of Peru's lower classes. Sawyer Miller also helped promote the Dalai Lama against China.
From Sawyer Miller, Malloch Brown spent the next 18 years at the World Bank and the United Nations, forming a deep, but secretive relationship with Soros.
He is also secretive about his finances—he lists only his government salary of about $160,000 on financial disclosure forms. Prior to taking the Ministry job, he served as the Vice Chairman of George Soros's hedge fund, the Quantum Fund in 2007. For a bit of comparison, note that Soros earned billions of dollars heading the Quantum Fund in recent years!
Malloch Brown enhances his meager government salary, however, with a government-subsidized home in London called "The Admiralty House," which is valued at about 7.76 million pounds sterling, according to the British government. Both the Spectator and the Times of London have written exposes of Malloch Brown for this sweetheart deal, where the rent is over $300,000 per year, and for which he "leapfrogged" over 20 higher-ranking cabinet members to get the perk. The price Malloch Brown demanded, to leave Soros's Quantum Fund was a fat portfolio covering the entire world, a peerage (he is now a British Lord), the right to attend Cabinet meetings, and the luxurious home.
The subsidized home deal is identical to the arrangement which Malloch Brown had for about five years when he headed the UN Development Program, and then became Deputy Secretary General of the UN, and lived in New York. There he was a tenant at the five acre estate owned by George Soros in Katonah, New York, which the UN paid for, at $120,000 a year, to Soros. It was about 20% below the market price, but when asked about this house by a reporter, Malloch Brown stormed out of the interview, exclaiming, "I am doing God's work!"
Malloch Brown and Soros have been co-conspirators in a global plot against the nation state since at least 1993, when Malloch Brown joined a group organized by Soros that travelled to Serbia and Bosnia, to advise him on how to best spend a $50 million grant to "rebuild" Bosnia, after the British orchestrated war had destroyed it. In the 1990s, Soros had also funded the street thug apparatus OTPOR, that boasts of toppling Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Soros's network later used the experienced Serbian mob-controllers to create the "democracy shocktroops" for the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia that put Saakashvili into power.
Throughout his time at the UN, Malloch Brown and Soros were a duo. They held a joint press conference in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002, to announce plans on how use UN funds, integrated with private funding from Soros and his ilk, to control the economies and policies of Third World countries. Soros was not there as a philanthropist—he was there as President and Chairman of the Soros Management Fund, a notorious hedge fund.
The Rose Revolution
There would be no Saakashvili regime today without George Soros and Malloch Brown. Even in 2001, Saakashvili was a Soros-financed operative. In January, 2004, at the annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Soros, Malloch Brown, and Mikhail Saakashvili gave a joint press conference where Saakashvili got $1.5 million—two-thirds from Soros's Open Society Institute and one-third from the UN Development Program. The funds were to be for a "Governance Reform Program" for Georgia, of which the main project was payoffs—a "Salary Supplement Fund," for which Malloch Brown arranged millions more.
Malloch Brown's UNDP bluntly describe how he and Soros would, in effect, not only give money, but would stack the Georgia government with the "skilled professionals" they would pick. The UNDP report says that,
Georgia "lacked the skilled professionals needed to design and execute sweeping reforms.... The state lacked the resources to pay salaries" that might lure the kind of globalist operatives that Soros and Malloch Brown wanted there.
So, continues the UNDP Report, "Working in close partnership with billionaire philanthropist George Soros, UNDP moved swiftly.... Speed was recognized as crucial to success. Even before Mr. Saakashvili was sworn into office, UNDP and Mr. Soros's Open Society Institute (OSI) had agreed upon the creation of a new initiative to help the new administration secure the staff and expertise it needed." The initiative—to pay a supplemental salary to Saakashvili and top government officials—went on for three years, and Saakashvili himself admitted its importance at a Washington, D.C. press conference in early 2004, when asked about his financial dependence on Soros.
Saakashvili said: "Now regarding George Soros's contribution, this is primarily UNDP Fund: United Nations Development Program Fund to fund capacity building for Georgian government, and George Soros will not be the only contributor. We said we expect, as we already have pledges from a number of other contributions. We only have at this moment, two million dollars contributed by UNDP and Soros, but we have some other pledges, we need at least eight million dollars already this year and we will need some more for the next year.... Soros played good role in bolstering democratic processes in Georgia. He was very instrumental for many NGOs in their development and I think there is nothing bad about that, wrong about that."
Malloch Brown's UNDP report even boasted that this funding had provoked "Russian President Vladimir Putin ... to chide Mr. Saakashvili that he was on Mr. Soros's payroll." By 2006, the salary supplements were over $1 million per month, says the UNDP report.
These are the funds that go to a large contingent of Soros agents who are the government of Georgia: head of the National Security Council, Alexander Lomaia; Gigi Bokeria, Deputy Foreign Minister (who had been one of the early trainees of the Serbian Otpor for street demonstrations); Chairman of Georgia Parliament's Committee for Eurointegration: David Darchiashvili, to name a few.
Good morning!
Going back to the recent Georgia-Russia conflict, which is actually a mere dress rehearsal of NATO for its future big war upon the installation of a totalitarian North Atlantic Empire in the near future, the thesis was raised that Georgia had turned itself into a (b) vassal-state of the Anglo-European oligarchy (or ‘global oligarchy’) and (b) was the same elite’s surrogate it its conflict with Russia.
It would pay to know just exactly who are the people involved behind the scene as operators for the global oligarchy for its latest synarchy engagement in Central Asia. Analysts connected with the Executive Intelligence Review were able to identify one named Mark Brown, who works for the same elites through his sponsor George Soros.
Below is a news item from that details the information about the oligarchic operators involved in the aforesaid conflict.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
===================================================================================
Mark `Moloch' Brown: The Empire's Coup Man in Georgia
Aug. 12, 2008 (EIRNS)—
There is good reason for the British Empire's silence about the attack by Mikhail Saakashvili's Georgia on South Ossetia on Aug. 7, an attack that brought the world to the brink of World War III. Saakashvili was put in power by the duo of British agents—billionaire speculator and Nazi collaborator, George Soros, and Lord Mark Malloch Brown, now the United Kingdom's Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations for the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). And, by tracking the records of the UN Development Program (UNDP) which Malloch Brown administered, and Soros's Open Society Institute and its offshoots, the proverbial check stubs will be found.
Lord Malloch Brown has been in the business of overthrowing governments since 1986, when he left the London Economist for the international section of an agressive political consulting firm in the U.S. called Sawyer Miller, and from there advised the Presidential campaign of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines. He stuck with Aquino through the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, a role about which he boasts. In 1990, he represented the Presidential campaign of Peruvian fascist novelist Mario Varga Llosa, a drug legalization advocate, who lost the election after proposing a vicious austerity program to cut the living standards of Peru's lower classes. Sawyer Miller also helped promote the Dalai Lama against China.
From Sawyer Miller, Malloch Brown spent the next 18 years at the World Bank and the United Nations, forming a deep, but secretive relationship with Soros.
He is also secretive about his finances—he lists only his government salary of about $160,000 on financial disclosure forms. Prior to taking the Ministry job, he served as the Vice Chairman of George Soros's hedge fund, the Quantum Fund in 2007. For a bit of comparison, note that Soros earned billions of dollars heading the Quantum Fund in recent years!
Malloch Brown enhances his meager government salary, however, with a government-subsidized home in London called "The Admiralty House," which is valued at about 7.76 million pounds sterling, according to the British government. Both the Spectator and the Times of London have written exposes of Malloch Brown for this sweetheart deal, where the rent is over $300,000 per year, and for which he "leapfrogged" over 20 higher-ranking cabinet members to get the perk. The price Malloch Brown demanded, to leave Soros's Quantum Fund was a fat portfolio covering the entire world, a peerage (he is now a British Lord), the right to attend Cabinet meetings, and the luxurious home.
The subsidized home deal is identical to the arrangement which Malloch Brown had for about five years when he headed the UN Development Program, and then became Deputy Secretary General of the UN, and lived in New York. There he was a tenant at the five acre estate owned by George Soros in Katonah, New York, which the UN paid for, at $120,000 a year, to Soros. It was about 20% below the market price, but when asked about this house by a reporter, Malloch Brown stormed out of the interview, exclaiming, "I am doing God's work!"
Malloch Brown and Soros have been co-conspirators in a global plot against the nation state since at least 1993, when Malloch Brown joined a group organized by Soros that travelled to Serbia and Bosnia, to advise him on how to best spend a $50 million grant to "rebuild" Bosnia, after the British orchestrated war had destroyed it. In the 1990s, Soros had also funded the street thug apparatus OTPOR, that boasts of toppling Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Soros's network later used the experienced Serbian mob-controllers to create the "democracy shocktroops" for the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia that put Saakashvili into power.
Throughout his time at the UN, Malloch Brown and Soros were a duo. They held a joint press conference in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002, to announce plans on how use UN funds, integrated with private funding from Soros and his ilk, to control the economies and policies of Third World countries. Soros was not there as a philanthropist—he was there as President and Chairman of the Soros Management Fund, a notorious hedge fund.
The Rose Revolution
There would be no Saakashvili regime today without George Soros and Malloch Brown. Even in 2001, Saakashvili was a Soros-financed operative. In January, 2004, at the annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Soros, Malloch Brown, and Mikhail Saakashvili gave a joint press conference where Saakashvili got $1.5 million—two-thirds from Soros's Open Society Institute and one-third from the UN Development Program. The funds were to be for a "Governance Reform Program" for Georgia, of which the main project was payoffs—a "Salary Supplement Fund," for which Malloch Brown arranged millions more.
Malloch Brown's UNDP bluntly describe how he and Soros would, in effect, not only give money, but would stack the Georgia government with the "skilled professionals" they would pick. The UNDP report says that,
Georgia "lacked the skilled professionals needed to design and execute sweeping reforms.... The state lacked the resources to pay salaries" that might lure the kind of globalist operatives that Soros and Malloch Brown wanted there.
So, continues the UNDP Report, "Working in close partnership with billionaire philanthropist George Soros, UNDP moved swiftly.... Speed was recognized as crucial to success. Even before Mr. Saakashvili was sworn into office, UNDP and Mr. Soros's Open Society Institute (OSI) had agreed upon the creation of a new initiative to help the new administration secure the staff and expertise it needed." The initiative—to pay a supplemental salary to Saakashvili and top government officials—went on for three years, and Saakashvili himself admitted its importance at a Washington, D.C. press conference in early 2004, when asked about his financial dependence on Soros.
Saakashvili said: "Now regarding George Soros's contribution, this is primarily UNDP Fund: United Nations Development Program Fund to fund capacity building for Georgian government, and George Soros will not be the only contributor. We said we expect, as we already have pledges from a number of other contributions. We only have at this moment, two million dollars contributed by UNDP and Soros, but we have some other pledges, we need at least eight million dollars already this year and we will need some more for the next year.... Soros played good role in bolstering democratic processes in Georgia. He was very instrumental for many NGOs in their development and I think there is nothing bad about that, wrong about that."
Malloch Brown's UNDP report even boasted that this funding had provoked "Russian President Vladimir Putin ... to chide Mr. Saakashvili that he was on Mr. Soros's payroll." By 2006, the salary supplements were over $1 million per month, says the UNDP report.
These are the funds that go to a large contingent of Soros agents who are the government of Georgia: head of the National Security Council, Alexander Lomaia; Gigi Bokeria, Deputy Foreign Minister (who had been one of the early trainees of the Serbian Otpor for street demonstrations); Chairman of Georgia Parliament's Committee for Eurointegration: David Darchiashvili, to name a few.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
IS THE WTO DEAD? WHAT SAYETH THINE PHYSIOCRATS?
Bro. Erle Frayne Argonza
The World Trade Organization may be dead in the woods. We may need to prepare dirges as a form of respect for this deadwood institution. It isn’t working at all, this idea of global trade regime galvanized as WTO and the GATT before it.
Probably the idea of ‘globalization’ as proposed by contemporary thinkers, which concretely incarnated in the institution of the WTO, may have been badly incubated. It’s like forcing antiquarian ideas of free trade—writ by physiocrats of France (Quesnay et al) and Scotland (Adam Smith, et al)—unto a context that is altogether different.
Remember that free trade could have never worked at all without imperialism, that Smith’s idea of free trade was in fact a policy project of the British East India Company which had Smith on its payroll. Without imperialism, free trade can’t be enforced.
That is why there is another section of the world population called the ‘fair traders’ who opt for another paradigm track in place of ‘free trade’. I am among these sub-population of fair traders, no matter how odd fair trade may be.
Below is a news item released by the economist Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee, which pronounced the death knell on the WTO.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
=================================================
WTO Dies, Brits Mourn
July 30, 2008 (EIRNS)—This release was issued today by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).
Yet another bankrupt institution of the British imperial world order of free trade and globalization bit the dust this week, with the thunderous collapse of the Doha round of trade liberalization talks of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In mid June, the British blueprint for European fascism, the Lisbon Treaty, likewise was buried by a plebiscite in Ireland.
European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, a top British imperial mouthpiece, summarized his master's voice on Doha's decease: "We missed the occasion to put into place the first world pact to redraw the world order." Visibly emotional, Mandelson added: "I'm afraid that on this subject an irresistible force met an unmovable object in the negotiating room, and the rest is history."
The "unmovable object" was the resistance of the majority of the world's population—as represented by the governments of India, China, Indonesia, and 90 other nations—as well as substantial political forces in Europe and elsewhere, that refused to go along with slitting their own economic throats in order to please London.
For example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, according to a highly annoyed Le Monde, reached the director general of the WTO, the Frenchman Pascal Lamy, on the phone on July 28, to tell him that, "in the name of the European people, he could not give his support to the agreement as it was." Le Monde complained about Sarkozy's activism, who in three days called numerous European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to explain his point of view. "France joined a 'coalition of the willing' whose objective was to increase the pressure on M. Mandelson," Le Monde wrote, "at the price of worsening divergences which appeared in the European camp. Along with Paris, there were eight countries, among which Italy, Ireland and Poland are members of the circle" which didn't accept the deal crafted by Mandelson.
The entourage of Mandelson, who refused to come to Paris when Sarkozy summoned him for discussions, is nagging: "France is putting into question the institutional mechanism... In the end, France will find itself alongside Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina," Le Monde sputtered, "and Germany will become the real pivot of the European Union."
Other international financial media also engaged in moaning and hand-wringing over the WTO demise. The July 30 Wall Street Journal ran an article headlined "Global Trade Talks Fail As New Giants Flex Muscle," in which they confess that the failure "leaves the so-called Doha Round of talks dead in the water... The setback could also signal an end to some 60 years of continuous expansion of global free-trade deals." And the Financial Times ran an article with a headline that just as well could have applied to the Lisbon Treaty collapse six weeks ago: "Negotiatiors Sift the Debris for Signs of Hope." They confess that none could be found.
The World Trade Organization may be dead in the woods. We may need to prepare dirges as a form of respect for this deadwood institution. It isn’t working at all, this idea of global trade regime galvanized as WTO and the GATT before it.
Probably the idea of ‘globalization’ as proposed by contemporary thinkers, which concretely incarnated in the institution of the WTO, may have been badly incubated. It’s like forcing antiquarian ideas of free trade—writ by physiocrats of France (Quesnay et al) and Scotland (Adam Smith, et al)—unto a context that is altogether different.
Remember that free trade could have never worked at all without imperialism, that Smith’s idea of free trade was in fact a policy project of the British East India Company which had Smith on its payroll. Without imperialism, free trade can’t be enforced.
That is why there is another section of the world population called the ‘fair traders’ who opt for another paradigm track in place of ‘free trade’. I am among these sub-population of fair traders, no matter how odd fair trade may be.
Below is a news item released by the economist Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee, which pronounced the death knell on the WTO.
[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to Executive Intelligence Review database news.]
=================================================
WTO Dies, Brits Mourn
July 30, 2008 (EIRNS)—This release was issued today by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).
Yet another bankrupt institution of the British imperial world order of free trade and globalization bit the dust this week, with the thunderous collapse of the Doha round of trade liberalization talks of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In mid June, the British blueprint for European fascism, the Lisbon Treaty, likewise was buried by a plebiscite in Ireland.
European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, a top British imperial mouthpiece, summarized his master's voice on Doha's decease: "We missed the occasion to put into place the first world pact to redraw the world order." Visibly emotional, Mandelson added: "I'm afraid that on this subject an irresistible force met an unmovable object in the negotiating room, and the rest is history."
The "unmovable object" was the resistance of the majority of the world's population—as represented by the governments of India, China, Indonesia, and 90 other nations—as well as substantial political forces in Europe and elsewhere, that refused to go along with slitting their own economic throats in order to please London.
For example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, according to a highly annoyed Le Monde, reached the director general of the WTO, the Frenchman Pascal Lamy, on the phone on July 28, to tell him that, "in the name of the European people, he could not give his support to the agreement as it was." Le Monde complained about Sarkozy's activism, who in three days called numerous European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to explain his point of view. "France joined a 'coalition of the willing' whose objective was to increase the pressure on M. Mandelson," Le Monde wrote, "at the price of worsening divergences which appeared in the European camp. Along with Paris, there were eight countries, among which Italy, Ireland and Poland are members of the circle" which didn't accept the deal crafted by Mandelson.
The entourage of Mandelson, who refused to come to Paris when Sarkozy summoned him for discussions, is nagging: "France is putting into question the institutional mechanism... In the end, France will find itself alongside Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina," Le Monde sputtered, "and Germany will become the real pivot of the European Union."
Other international financial media also engaged in moaning and hand-wringing over the WTO demise. The July 30 Wall Street Journal ran an article headlined "Global Trade Talks Fail As New Giants Flex Muscle," in which they confess that the failure "leaves the so-called Doha Round of talks dead in the water... The setback could also signal an end to some 60 years of continuous expansion of global free-trade deals." And the Financial Times ran an article with a headline that just as well could have applied to the Lisbon Treaty collapse six weeks ago: "Negotiatiors Sift the Debris for Signs of Hope." They confess that none could be found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)