|| Home || Books || About ||



Links

News & Current Affairs

Pickering Post
Russia Today | World News
Blacklisted News
The Guardian UK
Huffington Post
Newmatilda
Daily Mail | Science
Inside Story
Voice of Russia | World News
Reuters | Breaking News
Psylords
New Scientist



Human Interest

The Crowhouse | Not AFL
Singularity Hub
Divine Cosmos
Wake Up World
Next Nature
Truth Now
Business Insider | SAI
Pure Energy Systems
True Tube | No Censorship

Sheeple




20 August 2014

by Mike.B

The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil
$US v The World

From an Australian point of view, should more be read into what Clive Palmer said on Q&A on Monday 18th August 2014? Or are those words the rantings of a person punch drunk with power.
There is no doubt Palmer and his PUP party are in an unprecedented position in Australian politics. The power that he wields has seemingly surfaced at the perfect time for a battler.
He is single handedly, as the battler sees it, protecting the poor against the excesses of Joe Hockey's crippling budget cuts, the razor sharp incisive decisions into Centrelink by Kevin Andrews, the GP co-payment by Fiona Nash, and of course the treatment of refugees by George Brandis.

So what can we make of the words that Clive Palmer conveyed to the public? Let's reiterate and analyse what he said:

Loading the player...

On the face of it, it seems like he is ranting about a contentious business deal, but similarly, it can also be taken as a patriotic diatribe, with the Chinese as the victims.

This is not unprecedented, Julie Bishop as Foreign Minister also attacked China by saying: Australia will stand up to China to defend peace, Liberal values, and the rule of law. Link, and Tony Abbott attacked Russia for its perceived involvement in the takedown of MH17 for which Australia ultimately received sanctions on our beef and dairy products from Mr Putin.

The above can be taken as rhetoric or innuendo. But why would Australia, all of a sudden, start to denigrate its largest trading partner in China?

To find a possible answer, we have to regress and look at the geopolitical situation over the last decade and a half. Both Iraq and Libya, at the turn of the century, were wealthy and stable countries with good economies, health systems, employment, and standards of living. Both were ruled by dictators who in themselves were strong enough to keep in check factional squabbles of both political and ethnic/tribal varieties.

Apart from both being Arab, the one thing the dictators had in common was that they singularly wanted an end to the petrodollar, and move to a gold backed system.

The petrodollar is the currency that ties all energy sales to the US dollar. The machinations of the petrodollar system is far too complicated to go into in-depth in a short essay, but suffice it to say that the US didn't like the idea very much at all.

Desert Storm was fought on a platform of WMD, which as we all know turned out to be a false flag attack. The 'Arab Spring' hit Libya in 2011 when the US decreed that Ghadaffi was killing his own people. At that time Iran also was interested in moving to a gold backed currency, but 'toed the line' when the US threatened their nuclear aspirations.

In the last couple of years, we have seen Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa form the BRICS alliance, ostensibly to once again get rid of the $US as a basis for international trade, and possibly an end to the petrodollar. This once again has caused great consternation to the US administration.

Make no mistake, the BRICS alliance is the most powerful economic (and possibly military) alliance ever to threaten the stranglehold the $US has on world trade. BRICS is made up of emerging economies the likes of which the world has never seen before. For the first time, and despite MSM saying differently, sanctions against Russian companies and individuals have had no serious effect. Take for instance both Visa and Mastercard withdrawing their card from certain individuals. Those individuals simply withdrew all of their assets from Mastercard and Visa and signed up to Chinas UnionPay. The worlds largest card supplier. Link NAB Australia also supports this card.

So what has all this got to do with Australia? You may ask. The Americans are intensely aware of the dangers of BRICS, and are posturing their intent on those protagonists. Australia is bound to the US by the ANZUS treaty of 1951 and has been a dutiful servant of that agreement since then. Now, it seems the calling has come again. Link We are once again opening our borders to increased US military personnel and enlargement of US bases. Similar to when we became involved in Vietnam.

Japan, as shown on Foreign Correspondent - Return of the Samurai on the same evening as Palmer gave his diatribe Link has changed its constitution to allow its military to re-arm and become engaged internationally. The Philipines is also strengthening its defensive ties with the US. Albeit the Philipines has always had a strong US presence since WW2.

So, create a scenario whereby, without creating either a recession or depression, one wanted to massively increase military enrolment, how would one go about it?

Firstly we have to create unemployment, but at the same time protect those industries that keep our balance of payments in check. Answer: 457 visas. Import workers who will work cheaper than the locals in the industries that we need, and have no patriotic ties to Australia.
Secondly we have to make those unemployed workers lives so difficult that enlistment becomes attractive. Answer: Make the welfare payments for those under 30 unavailable for 6 months, and after that the continuation of them almost impossible.

Hang On!!! Isn't that what Kevin Andrews is trying to do?

Yes, There's something in the air, and it's all about the love of money...