Tag Archive | E.U.

Czech’s REJECT Eurozone Entry*

Czech’s REJECT Eurozone Entry*

THE Czech people have rejected joining the struggling euro with even the country’s president recognising that the people do not want to adopt the currency.

By Jon Rogers

While financial experts say they country could sign up as the general conditions are right, leader Milos Zeman has said that the people are against the move.

He said: “We have been fulfilling the Maastricht criteria, but there is a mental barrier to its adoption. A mere 30 per cent of Czechs are in favour of entering the eurozone.”

The governor of the Czech Republic’s central bank, Jiri Rusnok, has also said that the country is ready to adopt but added that it might be better to wait until wages and prices approached those of the bloc’s core members.

Czech Republic’s Milos Zeman with Boris Johnson (R)

 

According to Mr Rusnok, the Czech Republic is ready to give up the koruna but many believe it will not happen for at least five to 10 years.

He added while wage rises in some of the leading European economies are almost zero, the average salary increase in the Czech Republic is currently around five per cent.

Currently the nominal rate of wages rises in the country was 5.3 per cent in the first half of the year with average wages equivalent to €10 an hour.

Across the European Union countries though the figure is around €25 with this rising to €30 in some eurozone countries.

Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said:

“For us to remain at the core of the European Union, sooner or later we will have to respond to the question of not whether, but when the Czech Republic is capable of adopting the single European currency.”

The move comes after the latest economic data indicates while the eurozone countries are showing some signs of life they are continuing to struggle.

IHS Markit’s latest monthly health check across the countries have indicated, while the private sector has recorded signs of improvement, the rate of growth has slowed.

A statement from the company said:

“Although the rate of growth waned to a five-month low, high order book inflows and elevated levels of business confidence meant job creation remained one of the strongest recorded over the past decade as firms continued to expand capacity to meet rising demand.

“Price pressures eased, however, largely reflecting lower global commodity prices.”

Shoppers on the streets of the Czech capital Prague

 

JP Morgan took a more positive approach to the eurozone stating:

“The macroeconomic momentum appears to have eased somewhat in June, in particular in the Services sector.

“In light of the sharp improvement we have witnessed in the past nine months, this pause is not really a surprise and, in our opinion, should not be interpreted as an indication that the economy is about to roll over.

“Activity in the Eurozone remains at very healthy levels and consumer confidence is at its highest level in 16 years. In addition, despite the recent drop in commodity prices, inflation dynamics remain supported by a large backlog and supplier delivery delays worsening to the greatest extent for just over six years.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Eurozone Grinding to a Halt*

Eurozone Funding Shortfall Rises to Over $4 Trillion

Goldman Sachs Controls Eurozone!*

The Foundation of the West is Finally Shaking, Its Future Unсertain*

How Greece Became a Guinea Pig for a Cashless and Controlled Society*

E.U. Court Rules in Favour of Vaccine Injury Based on Evidence*

E.U. Court Rules in Favour of Vaccine Injury Based on Evidence*

By Brian Shilhavy

Our U.K. correspondent Christina England brings us this report regarding a vaccine injury case recently ruled on by a European Union court.

The ruling is significant, because the court looked at the evidence of the particular case, and ruled that the evidence showed that the hepatitis B vaccine caused multiple sclerosis.

This greatly upset pro-vaccine extremists who boldly declare that the “science is settled” on vaccines, and that there is no scientific proof that they cause injuries like this.

The court was not swayed by this position, however, and ruled on the evidence presented in the case, not “scientific” opinion.

On Wednesday, the E.U.’s top court said that despite the lack of scientific consensus on the issue, a vaccine could be considered defective if there is “specific and consistent evidence,” including the time between a vaccine’s administration, the individual’s previous state of health, the lack of any family history of the disease and a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following vaccination.

The corporate sponsored mainstream media spun the story from the vaccine extremist position, of course, with headlines such as:

“E.U. court: Vaccines can be blamed for illnesses without proof.” (CBS News) They define “proof” according to their own standards, declaring that anyone who disagrees with them has no “proof.”

“Scientific proof” is, of course, almost a contradiction in terms, since science cannot technically “prove” anything. Scientific studies and their outcomes are only as good as the data examined, and as new data becomes available, scientific theories are revised.

For more information on this topic, see the excellent article:

The Limitations of Science and the Medical Paradigm

The other problem with relying on “science” is that most scientific studies today are heavily biased, producing the outcomes desired regardless of the data. Corruption and conflict of interest are common, as one CDC whistle-blower has revealed regarding data withheld from CDC studies supposedly proving vaccines do not cause autism.

Throughout the history of jurisprudence, truth was always determined based on the preponderance of evidence, and not simply on the testimony of “experts” who claim they have “science” on their side over-writing all other types of evidence.

By Christina England

Every day, we hear stories about vaccine injuries. However, courts generally have failed to recognize the fact that vaccines can have adverse reactions due to the testimony of medical professionals and government officials that claim there is no medical science showing vaccines cause harm.

For this reason it has been virtually impossible to win a case without being able to produce medical evidence. In the U.S., it is illegal to sue pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries, and one must take their case to a special government run “vaccine court,” and that court has ruled that certain injuries (such as autism) are not allowed because the “medical science” has reportedly proven that vaccines do not cause these injuries.

This struggle could be about to change, however, because on June 21, 2017, the highest court in Europe, the European Union, ruled that courts can now consider whether a vaccination has led to someone developing an illness, even when there is no medical scientific proof.

CBS News reported on the court’s landmark decision, stating that the decision was issued in relation to a French man named Mr. J.W. who developed multiple sclerosis after receiving the hepatitis B vaccine in late 1998-99.

They stated:

“In 2006, he and his family sued vaccine-maker Sanofi Pasteur in an attempt to be compensated for the damage they claim he suffered due to the vaccine. Mr. J.W. died in 2011.”

At the time, the case was dismissed because the French Court of Appeals ruled that there was no causal link between the hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis, in spite of testimony of medical evidence to the contrary. (See: New Study: Hepatitis B Vaccination in France Sparked a Wave of New Cases of MS)

The case then went to the French Court of Cassation, who referred the case to the European Union.

The European Union Court document on the ruling stated that:

“In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 4 of Directive 85/374 must be interpreted as precluding evidentiary rules based on presumptions according to which, where medical research neither establishes nor rules out the existence of a link between the administering of the vaccine and the occurrence of the victim’s disease, the existence of a causal link between the defect attributed to the vaccine and the damage suffered by the victim will always be considered to be established when certain predetermined causation-related factual evidence is presented. (emphasis added)”

Their landmark decision has given hope to thousands of families worldwide, families like the Marchant family, whose daughter Jodie was permanently brain damaged after she received a mystery combination vaccine in 1993.

After hearing of the European Union’s decision, Mr. Marchant, Jodie’s father, stated:

“This decision could well be the key for vaccine-injured children and adults to obtain justice.

This could also affect the decisions where compulsory vaccinations are being forced on unwilling victims, as compensation would have to be paid.”

This is an important point, especially as the Italian government has recently proposed new legislation to increase the number of their mandatory vaccinations to 12, resulting in mass protests.

Mr. Marchant told Health Impact News that he believes that the court’s decision will make Jodie’s case easier to settle, and he has great faith in their present legal representatives to obtain justice for his daughter.

We asked U.K. lawyer, Juliette Scarfe, for her professional opinion on the ruling. She told us that:

“This case that came before the E.U. Court concerned the liability of a vaccine manufacturer for damage to a customer, due to the alleged defect in the product. In other words it concerned manufacturer liability for defective products.

The Court was asked for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the EEC Directive 83/374. Under Article 1 producers are held liable for damage caused by a defect in their product. Article 4 further clarifies that the injured person has to prove damage, the defect in the product and the causal relationship between the defect and the damage.

This is a high bar of proof, as the burden of proof is wholly on the claimant.

The issue the Court considered is that there is no legal definition in the legislation as to what “causal relationship” constitutes. Therefore, it is unclear as to what evidence and proof is sufficient to discharge the burden in respect of the connection between the defect in the product and the damage caused to the consumer.

How does a national member court decide that the proof has been made out to the requisite legal standard? Has the claimant discharged the burden of proof under Article 4 of 83/374? In other words is the administration of the vaccine the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of disease and damage and therefore the vaccine does not offer the safety that the consumer under E.U. law is entitled to expect.

The Court concluded that if causal related factual evidence is presented at a National Court level in the member state, that is sufficient to discharge the burden of proof Under Article 4, and prima facie the claimant suffered damage by the product for which they can seek redress. There is no need for medical research to be adduced that proves a causal link in the affirmative or negative. The claimant can stand as proof and prima facie evidence themselves.

This is common sense, surely. If I develop a debilitating illness shortly after receiving a vaccine, I should be the medical evidence in chief. It should not matter whether the medical community accepts or rejects that there exists a causal link between the disease and the vaccine in order to consider my defective product claim.

I should be able to rely on the safety of that product and make a claim if I have suffered harm, by adducing specific evidence in my member state court of that harm. I am not precluded from exercising those rights by the existence of scientific research that there is no causal link between the product and the damage. This is what the Court agreed, when interpreting the above E.U. Directive.

We shall see how the member state courts apply this interpretation and use legal precedent via case law to actually define the meaning of “causal relationship,” although I would caution against the definition becoming too rigid in terms of the framing of evidence that they will accept.  – Juliette Scarfe Partner

Ms. Scarfe raises some interesting points. If a perfectly healthy person goes into a doctor’s care and receives a vaccine and then shortly after develops a debilitating illness, it is as Ms. Scarfe points out, common sense that there is a casual link between the disease and the vaccine.

Medical Experts Cannot Prove Whether or Not a Child has Been Vaccine-Injured

Medical experts can only ever base their evidence on medical opinion, because it is virtually impossible for any medical expert to prove categorically that a vaccine has or has not caused a specific injury.

However, it is equally impossible for science to prove that vaccines are completely safe, because every person is different. To rely on scientific evidence alone would be futile, as to date, no scientific evidence has been able to prove categorically that all vaccinations are 100% safe.

As a consequence, lawyers, the justice system and medical professionals have refused point blank to examine vaccine cases in their entirety.

Their blanket refusal to examine all of the facts relating to vaccine cases has infuriated parents and professionals for many years and left many vulnerable children unable to get the justice they deserve.

CBS News turned to the corporate sponsored mainstream media’s favorite pro-vaccine spokesperson for comment, Dr. Paul Offit:

“Dr. Paul Offit, a paediatrician and vaccines expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said the criteria used by the court made no sense and are similar to those used by vaccine injury compensation programs in the United States. ‘Using those criteria, you could reasonably make the case that someone should be compensated for developing leukemia after eating a peanut butter sandwich,’ he said.

Offit said the courts shouldn’t be trusted to make rulings about scientific evidence.

Dr. Offit, of course, has a conflict of interest since he holds a patent on a childhood vaccine included in the U.S. CDC vaccine schedule. His extreme views on vaccines hardly represent the entire medical profession, and he has stated publicly outrageous comments, suggesting even that journalists who do not report the extremist views on vaccines should go to “journalist jail.”

Here is an older CBS report exposing the bias and conflict of interest of Dr. Offit:

Independent psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown’s 2001 online response to a Finnish study claiming that the science behind the MMR vaccine proved it was safe, was published in the British Medical Journal and put things into perspective. She wrote:

“If a group of people collapse after eating, say, Lemon Sole, in a particular restaurant, it would be ludicrous for those responsible to wave a hand over the problem saying that millions of people eat Lemon Sole every day and there are no problems. Health and Safety officials will get straight to the point of the issue and look at the fish in the restaurant, look at the individuals, test findings in the lab.

As hundreds of parents have found their children to react to vaccine, in some cases leading to the ‘new variant autism’ of loss of communication skills, motor impairments and bowel problems, is it not these cases the government should be looking at for answers?

The incidence of this particular tapestry of autism is indisputable. This is not related to increased recognition of autism, the TYPE is unusual and baffling to education and health professionals. In one of my cases of very obvious and indisputable reaction to pertussis vaccine the child in question has been found to have Kawasaki disease, her own immune system attacking itself. She presents as Asperger. There is no autism in the family but the baby had allergies prior to the vaccine. It is scientific examination of cases like this which will enable us to ultimately put measures in place to reassure the public.

Blanket refusal to look at the real issues and prevention of individuals exercising choice seems a dangerous policy…”

Today, years later, the “common sense approach” that Ms. Blakemore-Brown described, was exactly the same approach that was used by the European Union Court to base their ruling on.

Source*

Related Topics:

Whopping Vaccine Injury Payouts for US Fiscal Year 2017 Released*

Vaccine Injury Claims Expected to Increase in 2016*

California Officials Increase Mercury-laced Vaccines for Children and Pregnant Women*

Triplets Regress into Autism Following Flu Vaccine*

DTP Vaccine Associated With 212% Increased Infant Mortality Risk*

Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome*

CDC Commits New Vaccine-Autism Crime*

13 Year-Old Boy Permanently Disabled from Chicken Pox Vaccine Wins his Case in Vaccine Court*

400% Spike in Vaccine Injuries, Flu Shot Wins Top Honors for Biggest Payout*

Congress Fast Track Bill on Experimental Vaccines to the Public*

Russia and Islam*

Russia and Islam*

Putin with Chechyna leader Ramzan Kadyrov in 2015

 

Russia has often been in the news over the past years, mostly as the demonized “Empire of Mordor” responsible for all the bad things on the planet, especially Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, the Russian intervention in Syria and, of course, the “imminent” Russian invasion of the Baltics, Poland or even all of Western Europe. I won’t even dignify all this puerile nonsense with any attention, but instead I will focus on what I think are important developments which are either misunderstood or completely ignored in the West.

First, a few key dots:

1) The Russian intervention in Syria

There are so many aspects of the Russian military intervention in Syria which ought to be carefully studied that I am confident that many PhD theses will be written on this topic in the future. While I have mostly focused my work on the purely military aspects of this campaign, it is important to look at the bigger picture. To do that, I will make the admittedly risky assumption that the civil war in Syria is pretty much over. That is not my conclusion only, but also an opinion voiced by an increasing number of analysts including a Russian general during an official briefing. With the fall of Aleppo and now the latest Syrian-Hezbollah-Russian move to cut off the US controlled forces from their planned move to the Iraqi border, things do indeed looks pretty bleak for the terrorists, both the “good ones” and the “bad ones”. In the Syrian-Russian-Hezbollah controlled areas, normal life is gradually returning and the Russians are pouring huge amounts of aid (food, medical supplies, de-mining, engineering, etc.) into the liberated areas. When Aleppo was under Takfiri control it was the centre of attention of the western media, now that this city has been liberated, nobody wants to hear about it lest anybody become aware of what is a huge Russian success.

Even more impressive is the nature of the Russian forces in Tartus and, especially, in Khmeinim. The Russian military TV Channel “Red Star” has recently aired two long documentaries about the Russian facilities in Syria and two things are clear: first, the Russians are going to stay for a very long time and, second, they have now completed an advanced resupply and augmentation infrastructure which can accommodate not only small and mid-size aircraft and ships, but even the immense An-124. The Russian have dug in, very, very deep, and they will fight very hard if attacked. Most importantly, they now have the means of bringing in more forces, including heavy equipment, in a very short time.

Again, this might be a premature conclusion, but barring any (always possible) surprises, the Russians are in, Assad stays in power, the Takfiris are out and the civil war is over.

Conversely this means that: the U.S. lost the war, as did the KSA, Qatar, Israel, France, the U.K. and all the other so-called “friends of Syria”. The Iranians, Hezbollah and the Russians have won.

So what does all this really mean?

The most radical consequence of this process is that Russia is back in the Middle-East. But even that is not the full story. Not only is Russia back, but she is back in force. Even though Iran has actually made a bigger effort to save Syria, the Russian intervention, which was much smaller than the Iranian one, was far more visible and it sure looked like “Russia saved Assad”. In reality, “Russia saved Assad” is a gross over-simplification, it should be “the Syrian people, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia saved Syria”, but that is how most people will see it, for better or for worse. Of course, there is more than a kernel of truth in that view as without the Russian intervention Damascus would have probably fallen to the Daesh crazies and all the other Christian or Muslim denominations would have been more or less wiped out. Still, the perception is that Russia single-handedly changed what appeared as an inevitable outcome.

The Russian success was especially amazing when compared to the apparently endless series of defeats for the United States: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan and now the latest mess with the Saudi blockade against Qatar – the Americans just don’t see to be able to get anything done. Just the contrast between the way the U.S. betrayed Hosni Mubarak with how the Russians stood by Assad is a powerful message to all the regional leaders: better to have the Russians on your side than the Americans.

2) How Russia transformed Turkey from an enemy to a potential ally

To say that Turkey is a crucial ally of the U.S. and a vital member of NATO is an understatement. For one thing, Turkey has the 2nd largest army in NATO (the U.S. being the biggest one, of course). Turkey also holds the keys to the Mediterranean, NATO’s southern flank and the northern Middle-East. Turkey has a common border with Iran and a maritime boundary with Russia (over the Black Sea). When Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 bomber (with U.S. complicity) the situation became so tense that many observers feared that a full-scale war would break out between the two countries and, possibly, the NATO alliance. Initially, nothing happened, the Turks took a hard stance, but following the coup against Erdogan (also with U.S. complicity), the Turks suddenly did an amazing 180 and turned to Russia for help. The Russians were only glad too help, of course.

We will never really know what role the Russians really played in saving Erdogan, but it is pretty clear, even by his own words, that Putin did something absolutely crucial. What is indisputable is that Erdogan suddenly moved away from the U.S., NATO and the E.U. and turned to the Russians who immediately used Turkey’s ties with the Takfiris to get them out of Aleppo. Then they invited Turkey and Iran to negotiate a three way deal to end the civil war. As for the Americans, were not even consulted.

The example of Turkey is the perfect illustration of how the Russians turn “enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends and friends into allies”. Oh sure, Erdogan is an unpredictable and, frankly, unstable character, the Americans and NATO are still in Turkey, and the Russians will never forget the Turkish support for the Takfiris in Chechnia, Crimea and Syria or, for that matter, the Turkish treacherous attack on their SU-24. But neither will they show any external signs of that. Just like with Israel, there is no love fest between Russia and Turkey, but all the parties are supremely pragmatic and so everybody is all smiles.

Why does this matter?

Because it shows how sophisticated the Russians are, how instead of using military force to avenge their SU-24, which is what the Americans would have done, they quietly but with great resolve and effort did what had to be done to “de-fuse” Turkey and “turn” it. The day following the Turkish attack Putin warned that Turkey would not “get away with just some tomatoes” (referring to the Russians sanctions against Turkish imports). Less than a year later, the Turkish military and security services got almost completely de-fanged in the purges following the coup against Erdogan and Erdogan himself flew to Moscow to ask to be accepted by the Kremlin as a friend and ally. Pretty darn impressive, if you ask me.

3) Russia and the “Chechen model” as a unique case in the Muslim world

Many observers have commented in awe at the miracle Putin and Ramzan Kadyrov pulled-off in Chechnia: after the region was absolutely devastated by two vicious and brutal wars and after being a “black hole” for assorted terrorists and common thugs, Chechnya turned into one of the most peaceful and safe parts of Russia (even while neighboring Dagestan is still suffering from violence and corruption). I won’t revisit it all and describe all the dramatic changes in Chechnya, but I will focus on a often ignored aspect of the “Chechen model”: Chechnya has become an extremely strict and traditional Sunni Muslim region. Not only that, but it is also one which has basically comprehensively defeated not only the Wahabis themselves but also their Wahabi ideology. In other words, Chechnya today is unique in that this is a Sunni Muslim culture which is strictly Islamic but with no risk whatsoever of being re-infected by the Wahabi virus. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this unique feature.

In the 1990s most of the Muslim world supported the Wahabi insurgency in Chechnya in a completely knee-jerk reaction I call “wrong or right – my Ummah”. This is largely the result of the very sophisticated AngloZionist propaganda aimed at the Muslim world which completely distorted the truth about the conflict taking place there (the same happened in Bosnia, by the way). Nowadays, however, the “Chechen example” is attracting a great deal of attention in the Muslim world and the personality of Ramzan Kadyrov is slowly becoming somewhat of a hero. Even the Saudis who financed a great deal of the Chechen insurgency and who threatened Russia with terrorist attack during the Sochi Olympics, now have to be very courteous and “brotherly” with Ramzan Kadyrov. The truth is that the Saudis are directly threatened by the “Chechen model” because it proves something the Saudis want to categorically deny: the traditional and strict Islam does NOT have to be Wahabi or, even less so, Takfiri.

Think of it: the biggest threat to the Saudis is, of course, Iran because it is a powerful, successful and dynamic Islamic Republic. But at least Iran is Shia and that, in the minds of some Sunnis, is a grievous heresy and almost a form of apostasy. But the Chechens are potentially much more dangerous to the Saudi ideology – they are anti-Wahabi (they call them “shaitans” or, literally, “devils”) and they are willing to fight anywhere in the Muslim world to counter the “good terrorists” supported by the CIA and the House of Saud. Time and time again, Ramzan Kadyrov, and many other Chechen leaders and commanders, have repeated that they are willing to fight for Russia “anywhere on the planet”. They have already been deployed in Georgia, Lebanon, Novorussia and now they are fighting in Syria. Each time with devastating effectiveness. They are true Muslim heroes, recognized as such even by the non-Muslim Russians, and they want absolutely nothing to do with the Wahabis whom they hate with a passion. As a result, more and more people in the Muslim world are expressing their admiration for the Chechen model.

The Chechen model also is noticed and hotly debated inside Russia. Russian liberals absolutely hate it and, just like their western curators, they accuse Kadyrov all sorts of unspeakable crimes. Their latest invention is that homosexuals are jailed and tortured by Chechen security service. This kind of stories might be taken seriously in San Francisco or Key West, but they get zero traction with the Russian public.

Chechnia is ideally located to influence not only the Caucasus but also other Muslim regions of Russia and even Central Asia. The large number of Chechens in the Russian special operation forces also makes them very visible in the Russian media. All this contributes to the high-visibility and popularity of a viable traditional Sunni model which is the exact opposite of what is happening the E.U. Let’s compare the image of Muslims in the E.U. with Russia.

A couple of important caveats first. First, the picture was not always quite as rosy, especially not in the 1990s when Chechens were seen as thugs, brutes, crooks and vicious terrorists. Some Russians have neither forgotten nor forgiven (and, of course, some Chechens still hate Russians for what they did to Chechnya during the two wars). Second, this table compares what I call “ethnic Muslims” in Europe, meaning people coming from Muslim countries or families but who are not necessarily true, pious, Muslims at all. In fact, most of them are not. This is why I put “Muslims” in quotation marks. When I speak of Chechens, I refer to those conservative Chechens who support Kadyrov and his strict adherence to Islamic values. So, in a way, I will be comparing apples and oranges, but I do so because I want to show the greatest contrast possible and I believe that these apples and oranges play a crucial role in the development of the societies they live in now.

Muslims” in the EU Kadyrov Chechens” in Russia
Seen as alien/immigrants/”others” Seen as neighbors/locals
Seen as disruptive of the local culture Seen as representing a conservative/traditionalist strand in the Russian society
Seen as potential terrorists Seen as the prime victims of, and allies against, terrorism
Seen has disloyal to the native people Seen as the most loyal defenders of the Motherland
Seen as criminals and hooligans Seen as “law and order” types
Seen as lazy welfare leeches Seen as hard-working and skilled businessmen

 

Again, these are not scientific findings, they are not backed by careful opinion polling and they do compare apples and oranges. So take them with a big bag of salt. And yet, I think that what this table shows what are deep and contrasting trends inside the EU and Russian societies: the EU is on a collision course with the Islamic world while Russia is not. In fact, Russia represents a model of how a (nominally) Christian society can coexist with a large Muslim minority to the benefit of both communities. Russia also represents a unique example of how two very different religions can contribute to the development of a joint civilizational model.

Now an attempt at discerning the future

So let’s connect the dots above: First, Russia is arguably the single most important actor in the Middle-East, far eclipsing the United States. Second, Russia has successfully built an informal, but crucial, alliance with Iran and Turkey and these three countries will decide of the outcome of the war in Syria. Third, Russia is the only country on earth where Sunni Islam is truly safe from the Wahabi virus and where a traditionalist Sunni society exists without any Saudi interference. Combine these three and I see an immense potential for Russia to become the force which will most effectively oppose the power and influence of the Saudis in the Muslim world. This also means that Russia is now the undisputed leader in the struggle to defeat international Takfiri terrorism (what Trump – mistakenly – calls “Islamic fundamentalism”).

The AngloZionist rulers of the Empire have been very clever, if also very short-sighted: First they created al-Qaeda, then unleashed it against their enemies, then they used al-Qaeda/ISIS/Daesh to wreak havoc on a number of secular regimes just to “re-shape” a “new Middle-East” and now they are finally using al-Qaeda/ISIS/Daesh to set the West on a direct collision course with the entire Muslim world (1.8 billion people!) which will prevent their imperial slaves, that is all of us, the common folks living the E.U. and U.S., from ever looking at the real cause of our problems or, even less so, overthrow our rulers.

Thus we see the disgraceful and, frankly, stupid propaganda against Muslims and Islam as if somehow there was a real Muslim or Islamic threat. The reality, of course, is that all those Muslims who do represent a real threat for the people in the West are invariably associated with western security services and that since 9/11 the vast majority of terror attacks have been false flags. True, there were some apparently “real” (that is: undirected by western special services) attacks, but the number of victims in such, frankly, amateurish attack was minuscule and blown out of proportion.

Just like the “thug life” musical propaganda in the U.S. resulted in large numbers of U.S. Blacks being killed, mostly by shooting each other, so the “Islamic terrorist” hysteria in the media will result in a few genuine terrorist attacks. But if you add up all the numbers you quickly realize that this paranoid hysteria is completely out of proportion with the real danger.

Somebody wants us all the be afraid, really afraid.

Sadly, this hysteria has affected many, not only in the official Ziomedia, but also in the so-called ‘alternative’ media. The result? Just as the rulers of the Empire need it, the West and the Islamic world are now on a collision course. Who is your money on in this clash? Just take a look at the clowns we have for leaders and tell me that the West will win this one!

The West will, of course, lose this war too, but the consequences of this defeat are not the topic of this article. What I am trying to illustrate here is that the West and Russia have taken two radically different approaches to the challenges of an increasingly more influential Islamic world. I would compare Russia and the West to two swimmers caught in a powerful riptide: the West is determined to swim directly against it while Russia uses this riptide to get where she wants. Again, who do you think will fare better?

But this is not just about the West anymore, this is about the multi-polar world which will replace the current AngloZionist hegemony. In this context, one of the most interesting processes taking place is that Russia is becoming a major player in the Muslim world.

Only 10 to 15% of Russians are Muslim, that amounts to about 10 million people. Most Muslim countries are way bigger. And since 85 to 90% of Russians are not Muslims, the influence of Russia in the Muslim world cannot be measured by such relatively modest numbers. However, when we consider the central role Russian Muslims play in the Russian policies towards the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle-East, when we take into account that Russian Muslims are mostly Sunni and very well protected against the virus of Wahabism and when we recall that traditional Sunni Islam has the full backing of the Russian state we can truly get a sense of the unique combination of factors which will give the Russian Muslims an influence far in excess of their relatively modest numbers.

Furthermore, the Russians are now closely collaborating with Shia Iran and with (mostly) Hanafi Turkey. Most Chechens belong to the Sha’afi Sunni tradition and about half are adherents to Sufism. It might be because Russia is not a majority Muslim country that she is the ideal place to re-create a non-denominational form of Islam, an Islam which would be content to be Islam and with no need to subdivide itself into competing, sometimes even hostile, subgroups.

Russia only has an observer status in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) due to the fact that she is not a majority Muslim country. Russia is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which brings together China, Kazakhstan , Kyrgyzstan , Russia , Tajikistan , Uzbekistan , India and Pakistan. Let’s look at the approximate number of Muslims in the SCO countries: China 40,000,000 , Kazakhstan 9,000,000, Kyrgyzstan 5,000,000, Russia 10,000,000, Tajikistan 6,000,000 , Uzbekistan 26,000,000, India 180,000,000, Pakistan 195,000,000. That’s a grand total of 471 million Muslims. Add to this figure the 75’000’000 Iranians which will join the SCO in the near future (bringing the grand total to 546’000’000) and you will see this stunning contrast: while the West has more or less declared war in 1.8 billion Muslims, Russia has quietly forged an alliance with just over half a billion Muslims!

Russian nationalists (as opposed to Russian patriots) did try their best to infect Russia with her own brand of Islamophobia, but that movement was defeated by an absolutely uncompromising stance by Vladimir Putin himself who went as far as stating that:

“I need to say that, as I have repeated many times before, from its beginning Russia had formed as a multi-confessional and multi-ethnic state. You are aware that we practice Eastern Christianity called Orthodoxy. And some theorists of religion say that Orthodoxy is in many ways closer to Islam than to Catholicism. I don’t want to evaluate how true this statement is, but in general the coexistence of these main religions was carried out in Russia for many centuries. Over the centuries we have developed a specific culture of interaction, that might be somewhat forgotten in the last few decades. We should now recall those our national roots.”

Clearly, as long as Putin and those who support him remain in power, Islamophobia will have no future whatsoever in Russia.

[Sidebar: while this is never mentioned anywhere in the western literature, there are real political prisoners in Russia and there is one group of people which the Kremlin has truly persecuted on political grounds: the Russian nationalists. This topic would deserve an article on its own, but here I will just say that since Russia is a state where the rule of law is official policy, the Kremlin has to resort to some creative tricks to jail these nationalists including accusing them of “attempting to overthrow the state by using crossbows” (I kid you not!). Nationalists are often persecuted on charges of violating laws against hate speech, for distributing extremist literature, etc. Basically the authorities harass them and try to disrupt their activities. Again, the western champions of civil rights and various Putin-haters never speak about these very real political persecutions in Russia. Apparently western human rights organizations live by the motto of the “Angel of Death” of the French Revolution’s infamous “terror” period, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, who famously declared “pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté” (no freedom for the enemies of freedom). It is clear that as soon as Putin came to power he immediately realized the potential danger to the Russian society posed by these nationalists and he decided to clamp down on them every bit as hard as he did on the Wahabi recruiters and neo-Nazis propagandists in Russia.]

Furthermore, Russia has now become the most influential member of the SCO which represents the strategic interests of over half a billion Muslims worldwide. In the Middle-East, Russia has made an amazing comeback – from a quasi-total departure in the 1990s to becoming the single most influential player in the region. Russia has successfully convinced two very powerful potential competitors (Iran and Turkey) to work together and now this informal alliance is in a very strong position to influence the events in the Caucasus and Central Asia. At this point it is already clear that what we are seeing is a long term process and long term strategic goal of Russia: to become directly involved in the struggle for the future of Islam.

The struggle for the future of Islam

The Islamic world is facing an immense challenge which is threatening its very identity and future: the Wahabi-Takfiri ideology. That ideology, by its very nature, represents a mortal threat to any other form of Islam and a moral threat, literally, to every non-Takfiri Muslim living on the planet. The Takfiri ideology also represents a real existential threat to all of mankind, very much including Russia and Russia cannot simply sit back and wait to see whether the AngloZionist West or the wannabe Caliphate of Daesh will prevail, especially since the two are also locked in a weird symbiotic relationship between the western deep state and special services and the Takfiri leaders. Furthermore, assuming the West is willing to seriously fight terrorism ( and so far there is no sign of that whatsoever) it is also obvious that Europe is useless in this struggle (due to an acute lack of brain, spine and other body parts) and that the U.S., being protected by large oceans, are not facing the same threat as the states of the Eurasian landmass. Russia therefore has to act on her own, and very forcibly.

This is not a struggle which will be determined by military means. Yes, being willing and capable of killing Takfiris is important, and Russia can do that, but at the end of the day it is the Takfiri ideology which must be defeated and this is where the Russian Muslims will play an absolutely crucial role in the struggle for the future of Islam. Their status as a minority in Russia actually serves to protect Russian Muslims simply because there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever for any type of Wahabi Islam to gain enough traction in Russia to threaten the state. If anything, the two wars in Chechnia are the best proof that even in the worst possible conditions Russians will always hit back and very hard at any attempt to create a Wahabi state inside, or next to, Russia. President Putin often says that Russia has to sent her forces to fight in Syria not only to save Syria, but also to kill the many thousands of Russian citizens who are currently in the ranks of Daesh before they come back home: better to fight them there than to fight them here. True. But that also means that Russia will have to take the ideological fight to the rest of the Islamic world and use her influence to support the anti-Takfiri forces currently struggling against Daesh & Co worldwide.

The future of Russia and the Muslim world are now deeply intertwined which, considering the current disastrous dynamic between the West and the Muslim world, this is a good thing for everybody. While the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire are using both Russia and the Muslim world as bogeymen to scare their subjects into submission to the international plutocracy, Russia will have to become the place where the Islamophobic myths will debunked and a different, truly multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic civilizational model offered as an alternative to the monolithic Hegemony dominating the world today.

Modern secularist ideologies have given mankind nothing except violence, oppression, wars and even genocides. It is high time to kick them into the trash heaps of history where they belong and return to a truly tolerant, sustainable and humane civilizational model centered around spiritual, not materialistic, values. Yes, I know, for the media-brainwashed zombies out there religion is not exactly associated with the ideas of tolerance and compassion, but that is just the inevitable consequence of being exposed to particularly nasty and hypocritical forms of religion. That, and a basic lack of education. These things can be remedied, not so much by debating them ad nauseam, but simply by creating a different civilizational model. But for that Russia and the Islamic world will need to look inside themselves and focus on healing their own (still numerous) pathologies and dysfunctions (especially spiritual ones) in order to create such a spirituality-centred alternative to the Almighty Dollar. In the words of Saint Seraphim of Sarov, “acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved”. I think that this is a future worthy of fighting for.

Source*

Related Topics:

How Russia, China Brought Washington’s Plan to Destabilize Eurasia to a Halt*

Russia, Iran, Turkey Reach Consensus on De-escalation Zones in Syria*

How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing the World – For the Better*

Putin: Illuminati Plans to Use Islam To Spark World War III*

Syria Starts Exporting Fruits to Russia*

From Russia with Love: How Much Territory ISIS lost in 2015*

Captured Israeli Officer Details Israeli-ISIS Plan to Wipe-out all Islamic and Muslim Culture and Prevent Religions Coming Together*

Hamas Asks Russia to Help Stop Israeli ‘Aggression’*

Iran and Russia Officially Ditch the Dollar*

Russia Says No to One-World Government*

Erdogan Comes Face to Face with U.S., Russia in Syria*

Russia and UNESCO Push for ‘generation without racial, ethnic, religious prejudice’*

Islam and Politics

Putin Foils the Rothschild Zionists in Syria*

The War Between Competing Western Establishments*

A Flemish Priest in Syria, “Putin and Assad saved my life”*

Putin Opens Moscow Grand Mosque*

The CIA, Saudia and Bin Laden Were Behind the Chechen Wars*

Takfirism a Saudi and CIA Creation*

Wahhabism, Saudis and the Divided Ummah*

Wahhabism as a Tool of Colonialism*

In One Year the U.K.’s Data Protection Act Will Cease To Be*

In One Year the U.K.’s Data Protection Act Will Cease To Be*

 

On May 25th 2018 the biggest change to our data protection law in 20 years will kick in.  The General Data Protection Regulation, better known by its acronym GDPR will be its replacement.

The GDPR will expand and extend the current data protection requirements for anyone processing personal data and will give you, the data subject, a raft of rights to put you a little more in control of when, how and why your data should be used.

The GDPR will apply to every E.U. Member State, every E.U. citizen and any organisation which provides a service or goods to an E.U. citizen.

Regardless of Brexit, the U.K. will be formally enacting and applying GDPR next May. It is anticipated that in the post Brexit landscape it will find itself a part of the Great Repeal Bill, any changes which were to be made to the Regulation at that point would have to ensure the U.K.s adequacy in terms of data protection. But that is some way off. For now, simply learning what the GDPR is will be a good start.

Whilst most of the detail in the Regulation is for business to address, there are key rights which will benefit the individual, these come in the form of 8 specific data protection rights:

  • The right to be informed
  • The right to access
  • The right to rectification
  • The right to erasure
  • The right to restrict processing
  • The right to data portability
  • The right to object
  • Rights relating to automated decision making and profiling

These rights will enable us to have more control over how our data is used.  They will give us the right to request that inaccurate personal data about us is amended or removed.  We will get the opportunity to specifically say no to targeted marketing, to our data being used to profile us and to question how automated decisions based on our data have been made-  imagine this as a challenge to the “computer says no” process so many people find frustrating and worrying.

Companies will have to specifically seek our consent to access, keep and share our personal data and if they want to use it for a new purpose they will have to come back and ask our permission all over again.  Not only that, but organisations will have to produce impact assessments outlining transparently how they intend to use our data.

These are just some of the opportunities and benefits in the GDPR.   Importantly, for the GDPR to work and for organisations to adhere to the new rules people will have to begin to take greater care of their data, challenge who they share it with and question whether an organisation is going to treat their data properly.  If an organisation doesn’t fulfil these requirements, citizens must feel brave enough to say no and look elsewhere.

The age of trusting everyone with our data is long over.  This has been acknowledged by the GDPR.   Whilst the new Regulations are far from perfect they are a good starting point.  The GDPR will educate every one of us that we have an individual and collective responsibility towards protecting personal data.

Over coming weeks Big Brother Watch will be publishing a series of GDPR Factsheets designed to explain simply what the GDPR is, how it will work and what your rights will be.  We will announce them on our website, Twitter and Facebook page. In the meantime if you have any queries about the GDPR we would recommend you visit the Information Commissioner Office www.ico.org.uk where you will find an overview of the new laws.

Source*

Related Topics:

U.K. just Passed the Most Invasive Surveillance Law in the Democratic World*

Spy Agencies Illegally Collected Personal Data on British Citizens for 10 Years*

 U.K. Bill Hands vast Surveillance Powers to Police and Intelligence Agencies*

U.K. GPs to Gather Info on Sick Patients for the State*

European Court of Justice rules Facebook-U.S. Spy Web Data Agreement Invalid*

Genetic Testing or U.K. Population Surveillance*

Greek Authorities to Launch Mass Confiscation of Safe Deposit Boxes, Securities, Homes in Tax-Evasion Crackdown*

Greek Authorities to Launch Mass Confiscation of Safe Deposit Boxes, Securities, Homes in Tax-Evasion Crackdown*

By Tyler Durden

Last week, the Greek parliament once again approved more austerity to unlock withheld Greek bailout funds in Brussels: a symbolic move, which has little impact without any actual follow through, like for example, actually imposing austerity. And while Greeks have been very good in the former (i.e. promises), they have been severely lacking in the latter (i.e. delivery).

That may be changing. According to Kathimerini, Greek Finance Ministry inspectors are about to start seeking out the owners of all local undeclared properties, while the law will be amended to allow for financial products and the content of safe deposit boxes to be confiscated electronically. The plan for the identification of taxpayers who have “forgotten” to declare their properties to the tax authorities is expected to be ready by year-end, according to the timetable of the Independent Authority for Public Revenue.

What follows then will be a wholesale confiscation by the government of any asset whose source, origins and funding cannot be explained.

The Greek tax authorities will receive support from the Land Register to that end, as by end-September IAPR inspectors are set to obtain access to the company’s database to draw details on properties. Any taxpayers identified as having skipped the declaration of their assets to the tax authorities will be asked to comply and declare them, along with paying the tax and fines dictated by law. Should taxpayers fail to do so, the asset will be “sequestered.”

Kathimerini also notes that the IAPR is also waiting for Parliament to pass regulations permitting the mass confiscation of safe deposit box contents and financial assets such as securities.

To date the process has been conducted in handwriting and is therefore particularly slow in locating the assets of taxpayers who have either concealed incomes or have major debts to the state. It is about to get much more streamlined: once the necessary regulations are in place for the operation of an automatic system to collect debts, the tax authorities will be able to issue online confiscation notices and immediately get their hands on the contents of safe deposit boxes, confiscating cash, precious stones, jewelry and so on. They will also be able to confiscate shares and other securities.

This year the tax authorities will focus their efforts on confiscations as they try to reduce the huge pile of expired debts to the state. In this context the Independent Authority for Public Revenue will auction 27 properties belonging to state debtors by the end of next month, with the aim of collecting 2.7 billion euros by the end of the year from old debts and another 690 million euros of new debts from major debtors.

We will share the details of the auctions with readers as some notable bargains may emerge in the coming months.

Source*

Related Topics:

Greeks Paid €7bn More in Taxes in 2016, as Middle-Classes Vanish and Poverty Increases*

IMF to Greece: Sorry We’ll Destroy You*

There is a new U.S. “Marshall Plan” for Greece*

What Will Unfold as Greece Hires a Rothschild as Debt Advisor*

Greece Bans Cash*

Greece is now a Colony of the E.U.*

Europe’s Vindictive Privatization Plan for Greece*

How German and French Banks Helped Bankrupt Greece*

Wikileaks and How Israel Enslaved the British*

Wikileaks and How Israel Enslaved the British*

By Ian Greenhalgh

[Editor’s note: Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive…

While few would dispute that a tangled web surrounds his public image, many fail to discern that Assange is practising deception; in fact, it is his raison d’etre, he and his Wikileaks organisation are a front for what the CIA correctly identified as a “hostile intelligence service”; VT will go further and identify them as Israel’s Mossad.

Furthermore, the unstinting support given to Assange and Wikileaks by Nigel Farage and his UKIP party is a clear indicator that they too, are serving Israeli masters and have been ever since they appeared on the British political scene in the 1990s.

Let us step back in time to the mid-90s, a time when Britain was coming to the end of a 15 year rule by the Conservative Party, most of it under Margaret Thatcher. The Labour Party was undergoing a resurgence due to the leadership of John Smith and the disarray within the Conservative Party caused by the thorny issue of the EU and the Maastricht Treaty.

Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock had failed to win the 1992 election, largely due to poor handling of the media and a failure to sell Kinnock to the British people – he was too Welsh and too ginger and Labour never managed to market him effectively, the popular support within the electorate was there but the marketing savvy was lacking.

The Conservatives under Thatcher in the 1980s had transformed British politics by hiring the prestigious Saatchi and Saatchi PR firm and making politics more about the image presented to the public than actual policies. Kinnock’s failure in 92 began a new phase in the history of the Labour Party as party insiders realised that, to beat the Conservatives they had to play the same game where PR spin was king and policies a distant second in importance.

John Smith replaced Kinnock and was hugely popular both with his own party and the British electorate, he was seen as a near certainty to win the 1997 election – sadly he died of a heart attack in 1994 and was replaced by the man who today is best remembered as the war criminal that followed George W Bush into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq like a faithful lap dog, one Tony Blair.

Tony Blair was an Israeli asset from the moment he first entered politics under the sponsorship of Zionist Jew Levy Mendelsohn, a man Blair would make Lord Levy shortly after becoming Prime Minister. In partnership with Peter Mandleson, a close friend of the Rothschilds, Blair destroyed the Labour Party, turning it into ‘New Labour’ and moving it from a left wing, socialist party to a centre-right, populist puppet that emulated the PR spin tactics of the 1980s Conservatives while slavishly following the directions of their Israeli masters.

All the other New Labour leaders were stooges too, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, all of them, only John Prescott remained from the old, socialist Labour and he likely only got to remain because he knew where the bodies were buried, so to speak.

Under Blair and New Labour, Britain entered a new and shameful period where we functioned as the 51st state of the USA and our armed forces became an adjunct of those of the U.S., dutifully working alongside the Yanks to fight the War On Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and share in the heroin, oil and stolen resources profits.

During the Blair years, the Conservative party fell into utter disarray under a series of unpopular and ineffective leaders such as William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith (yes, no-one remembers them in Britain either), torn apart by a deep divide over the issue of Britain’s membership of the EU. Out of this divide came Nigel Farage and UKIP.

Farage, a former City banker, formed UKIP in order to attract away from the Conservative Party those who were referred to as ‘Euro Sceptics’ and wanted Britain to either leave the E.U. entirely or at least change drastically the nature of Britain’s membership of the E.U. With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that Farage and UKIP was an Israeli operation to weaken and destabilise the Conservative party, thus allowing Tony Blair and New Labour to enjoy almost 15 years in power. Thus, Britain became an Israeli puppet.

While UKIP never became a major force in British parliamentary politics, they served a vital role in the Israeli takeover.

By 2010 and the election of David Cameron, Israeli control had been completely solidified; Cameron had been an Israeli asset since at least the early 90s and he continued to follow Tel-Aviv’s orders every bit as obediently as Blair had before him.

Fast forward to 2016 and the infamous referendum on membership of the E.U., now universally referred to as ‘BREXIT’. Cameron dutifully did as he was ordered and lost, Farage won, a clear case of Israeli controlling both sides and ensuring they get the result they desired – Britain out of Europe, thus destabilising both the E.U. and Britain itself.

Having served their roles and achieved their assigned tasks, Farage and Cameron both retired from politics post-BREXIT, Cameron to enjoy his vast personal wealth, Farage to float around the fringes of politics, occasionally sticking his head up to support his fellow Israeli stooges – best evidenced by his visit to the US during the last election in order to make a few speeches praising his good pal Donald Trump.

So now you have the background to where we are today in Britain, a nation where the ruling Conservative Party is every bit as much under Israeli-control as New Labour had been under Blair, meaning we have been under the Zionist thumb for the last 20 years.

A glimmer of hope does exist in the form of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, a true socialist of the old Labour party who has been attacked and slandered at almost every turn as an anti-semite and labelled as ‘unelectable’ by the British media, despite enjoying massive popular support amongst the British people. Of course, Corbyn is no anti-semite, he is simply labelled that because he is not an Israeli asset, the first leader of either the Labour or Conservative parties for over two decades who is not a puppet of Tel-Aviv.

Corbyn has attempted to purge the Labour Party of it’s Blairites, those who have taken the dirty shekel proferred by the Zionist criminals. That task remains incomplete, hence we have witnessed many attacks on Corbyn from within his own party. Sadly, if he loses the upcoming general election, Corbyn will probably not get the chance to complete the purge of the Blairites as a challenge to his leadership of the party will almost certainly arise.

In recent weeks, Tony Blair himself has mooted a potential return to politics, this is a clear indicator that the Zionists are concerned that Corbyn has had at least a measure of success in his campaign to rebuild the Labour Party into it’s original, socialist form and remove the Israeli hegemony it has been enslaved under; hence they are threatening to reintroduce their faithful servant Blair and use him to undermine Corbyn while dividing the Labour party in much the same way they used their boy Farage to deeply wound the Conservatives in the 1990s.

When Assange stepped onto the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy this week and gave his ‘can’t forgive or forget’ speech and stating that ‘the war is far from over’ he was reading directly from the agenda set for him by Tel-Aviv. The Swedish rape charges that have just been dropped were a complete fabrication, part of a psyop designed to lend credibility to Assange, to paint him as a real deal fugitive from justice who was the sworn enemy of ‘the powers that be’.

Of course, this is a total inversion of the truth, Assange and Wikileaks along with the British government, the British media and the British Establishment are all on Tel-Aviv’s payroll, all faithful servants, willing conspirators and faithful partners in crime to that evil Zionist regime. Farage too, although now relegated to the sidelines, remains ready, waiting and more than willing to continue to serve those same masters. Ian]

Daily Beast
Wikileaks: Inside the Farage-Assange-Trump Connection

When Julian Assange sought refuge in 2011 at an embassy in the heart of London, only one of Britain’s political parties was willing to offer support to the exile in their midst.

Nigel Farage’s U.K. Independence Party, which seemed a fringe movement at the time but became the driving force behind Brexit, swung into action and campaigned against the demand that Assange be returned to Sweden for a police interview on allegations of rape.

Farage and his UKIP colleagues have spoken out publicly in support of Assange numerous times since 2011, but leaked emails seen by The Daily Beast reveal the true extent to which the party apparatus tried to assist the founder of WikiLeaks, which the head of the CIA has since described as a “hostile intelligence service” that cooperated with Russian agents.

The episode raises further questions about links between Farage, Assange and the Russian government. Farage, who is also a favoured friend of U.S. President Donald Trump, was spotted emerging from a meeting with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in March.

Internal UKIP memos reveal the relationship went back much further: Assange and his lawyer were given the opportunity to contribute directly to speeches given by UKIP on the floor of the European Parliament while branches of the party in and around London were told to send activists to protest against Assange’s proposed judicial surrender to the authorities.

“We need bodies,” read an email request sent to local UKIP associations asking them to send two or three people each as an “astroturf” protest against Assange’s plight when he appeared in court in London in January 2011.

Farage and his UKIP colleagues also reportedly met privately with Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens, who was repeatedly offered the chance to help craft the party’s words on the case, according to the leaked emails.

Stephens was asked if he or Assange would like to meet a UKIP member of the European Parliament, Gerrard Batten, on January 31 that year “in order to discuss bringing out issues in the case.”

He was asked again if he wished “to include a few points to get the message across” on February 5, 2011, before Batten was due to speak in the European Parliament. Batten asked Stephens again if he had “any points that you feel I should or should not mention in the few minutes I get to speak” on February 11.

Batten addressed the European Parliament, standing at Farage’s right hand, on February 14, 2011,. where he raised the prospect that Assange was being mistreated because he was “a political dissident.” He returned to the case in June 2011, telling the parliament in Brussels that the U.S. “need him locked up somewhere” while they work out how to prosecute him.

The UKIP MEP also made a submission on behalf of Assange in his case against extradition, which went all the way to Britain’s Supreme Court in 2012. Last year, Batten wrote on his blog that Assange’s stay in the embassy of Ecuador had been tantamount to “arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.”

When news broke on Friday that Sweden would no longer pursue the allegations against Assange after a seven-year standoff while he hid in an embassy out of the reach of British law enforcement, Batten told The Daily Beast he had never taken a position on the guilt or innocence of Assange.

“I don’t really have a view about Mr. Assange. My involvement with him was regarding my opposition to the European Arrest Warrant,” he said. “At the time, eminent British lawyers who looked at it said this would never make it to an English court—these kind of accusations. It didn’t sound very sound in the first place.”

Assange hailed Sweden’s decision to stop pursuing the allegations and celebrated the release of Chelsea Manning—one of the first major WikiLeaks leakers—in a speech from the balcony of the embassy in London’s Mayfair.

“We have today won an important victory, but the road is far from over. The proper war is just commencing,” he said, promising to accelerate the distribution of material about the CIA.

The standoff will continue because there is still an outstanding warrant for Assange’s arrest over skipping bail.

Batten told The Daily Beast he had attended Assange’s lavish 40th birthday party in 2010 but had not met with him since. He said he does not recall whether Stephens or Assange took up his offer to help with his speeches. He also said he had received no donations from anyone connected to WikiLeaks or the Russian government. “If only these people would offer me money, I’d have the luxury of refusing it,” he said.

UKIP has repeatedly denied co-operating with Russia, Russian front organizations, or taking funds from the Kremlin—which would be illegal under British law—but Farage, who was one of the first foreign politicians to meet with Trump after his election, has called for improved relations between Russia, Britain, and the U.S. He also described Vladimir Putin as the foreign leader he most admires.

Last week, Farage refused once again to answer questions about his recent visit to see Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. “That has nothing to do with you,” he snapped at a Die Zeit reporter. “It was a private meeting.”

He has claimed that he met Assange as a journalist—not as a political go-between—but no interview has appeared since the March 9 meeting.

In the same interview, Farage also failed to disclose whether he received payments for his regular appearances on RT, a news channel funded by the Russian government, which paid Assange to produce his own show in 2012.

The secrecy surrounding Farage’s meeting with Assange, prompted speculation that he may have been sent as an emissary from someone in Trump’s orbit. Farage is close to Trump, he has also met the political operative Roger Stone who claimed to have a back-channel to Assange last summer.

Farage has denied that he was carrying a secret message to or from Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization has been accused of influencing the result of last year’s U.S. presidential election with the help of Russian hackers.

One of the UKIP candidates contesting Britain’s election next month told The Daily Beast that there is nothing suspicious about the attitude towards Russia taken by Farage and his party. Nigel Sussman, the parliamentary candidate for Edmonton in North London, says it’s a natural meeting of minds.

“Russia is very credible and commonsensical—and UKIP is very credible and commonsensical,” he said. “There’s a synergy of views there.”

Sussman has a more intimate view of Russia than most British politicians. He traveled to Crimea last month as a guest of the Russian parliament, who paid for internal flights, accommodation and food. Sussman says he paid for his own round-trip flights to Russia.

Sussman, the chair of UKIP’s Ilford association, who was on the trip with another former UKIP candidate, met with the local pro-Russian officials and toured the streets of former eastern
Ukraine talking to local residents accompanied by cameras from Russia’s state-owned TV Channel 1. Although most of the international community regards Moscow’s covert occupation and annexation of Crimea following as stage-managed vote as illegal and illegitimate, based on his interviews, Sussman says: “Crimea had a perfectly legitimate referendum in my opinion.”

As a result, he has submitted a report to UKIP’s National Executive Committee, which calls for a policy change—demanding that sanctions should be lifted against Russia.

“As far as I can see there don’t seem to be a lot of people standing up for Russia right now,” he said. Is UKIP the most pro-Russian party? “Yes, I think it is.”

Sussman is, however, hopeful that Trump will ease relations between Moscow and the West.

 “I have high hopes for Trump because Trump is going to meet Putin. I think he has said it plain: he wants to be friends with Russia. That sounds like an eminently sensible position for God’s sake!”

The UKIP candidate insisted that there was no evidence that Putin’s regime had helped Trump into office, although the U.S. intelligence community is on the record and unanimous in its conviction that Russia tried to influence the outcome. He also explained away Moscow’s reported munificence towards Marine Le Pen. “What happened was Le Pen tried to get a loan from French banks and none of the French banks would lend her any money—and that’s outrageous… It’s a bit like UKIP, I mean God help us!”

The bottom line: Le Pen’s party received millions of dollars in loans in 2014 from a now defunct Russian bank, and, whether coincidentally or out of conviction, her minions, too, endorsed the Crimean annexation.

The two representatives from Britain on the Crimea tour this year were not joined by any members of Le Pen’s National Front, but the guests included an unlikely array of minor party politicians like Jaroslav Holik from a Czech party with links to Le Pen, or the son of Serbia’s Vojislav Seselj, who was acquitted of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a United Nations tribunal in the Hague.

“It’s a collection of odds and sods; far left or far right will do, as long as they are open to some Russian support. Some of these are full Russian puppets like the Serbian Radical Party,” said Neil Barnett, the chief executive of Istok Associates, a corporate intelligence and investigations consultancy.

There is evidence that Russia helped UKIP secure Brexit—using its army of online trolls and bots—but there is no proof of collusion or direct funding from the Kremlin, or assistance from WikiLeaks.

Arron Banks, the British businessman who was once UKIP’s biggest donor and set up the unofficial Brexit campaign group Leave.EU, says he has a good relationship with Russia—including long boozy lunches with the Russian ambassador—but says there has been no monetary donation either directly or through his array of offshore companies.

Banks, who was pictured in the entourage that met Trump with Farage in the days just after Trump won the election, gave an extraordinary interview to the Observer newspaper in London last month in which he admitted that his Russian wife had the profile of a Russian spy, then suddenly denied that Russia had bankrolled Brexit—unprompted—and repeatedly defended Putin.

“What you’re talking about is the degree to which the Russians actually—let’s say they influenced the Brexit vote. Say I’m pro-Putin. Nigel said he’s not anti-Putin, if that’s the right word. But all we’ve said is that there are elements of what Russians do that we don’t disagree with. We don’t agree with everything they’re doing, like murdering journalists in the street,” he said.

This “joke” is typical of Banks, who ensures it’s hard to know exactly how seriously his words should be taken at any given moment.

When his old pal Farage was spotted leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in March, original reports said it was unclear why he had been inside the building—not least since Farage claimed to have forgotten.

A newspaper later reported that he had indeed been holding secret talks with Assange, and Banks wrote on Twitter: “Well he didn’t go for drinks with the ambassador did he?”

Another multi-millionaire with loose-lips, like Trump, Banks seems to revel in offering glimmers of a sprawling axis that runs from Washington D.C. to Moscow via London—and a tiny sliver of Ecuadorian sovereignty.

Whether Assange makes it outside the embassy in the coming days or if he continues to hide from justice—the game of shadows will continue.

Source*

Related Topics:

Britain’s Hostile Elite: Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think*

Outrage as U.K.School Calls Police after Pupil Looks at Ukip Website in Class*

Proof That Britain’s E.U. Brexit Referendum Was Rigged*

E.U. Foreign Policy Chief Questions Relations with U.S.*

U.K. Brexit Election 08 June 2017*

U.K.’s Overhaul of Official Secrets Act Will Give Journalists 14 years in Jail for Publishing Sensitive Info.*

E.U., Israel Agree to Develop Eastern Mediterranean Gas Pipeline*

Ombudsman Opens Inquiry into E.U.’s ‘Secretive’ Decision Making*

E.U. Founders to Form Federal Union of European States*

E.U. to Take Control of British Nuclear Deterrent*

E.U. Military Union Is Budgetary Union*

E.U. Begins to Fracture post-BREXIT*

 

Stop E.U. from Hijacking Africa’s Clean Energy Future*

Stop E.U. from Hijacking Africa’s Clean Energy Future*

By Mohamed Adow

The vision for an African-led clean energy revolution is in danger of being thrown off course because of attempts by the European Commission (EC) and France to hijack the Africa Renewable Energy Initiative.

French environment minister Ségolène Royal has been accused of undermining African leadership of a flagship clean energy programme (Pic: Flickr/COP Paris)

The Africa Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI) was one of the greatest achievements to emerge from the COP 21 climate summit in Paris in 2015 and, as an African and climate activist, my proudest moment. It made headlines around the world. Attracting pledges totalling $10 billion of public support from the G7, E.U., Netherlands and Sweden, the scheme has ushered an exciting dawn of African leadership on climate change to see the continent harness it’s huge clean energy potential.

However, that vision is now in tatters after attempts by the EC to control and divert Africa’s renewable energy initiative to its own ends. It is imposing itself on the AREI Board and the initiative’s Independent Delivery Unit (IDU) and, together with France, forced through undue approval of a host of 19 energy projects, bypassing the AREI’s transparent procedures. 

The EC is recycling its old financing commitments to meet its new financial obligations and has co-opted what was previously an African-led process to adopt and legitimise this double counting to the detriment of Africans.

The EC claims that the 19 projects correspond to €4.8bn of new investments and 1.8 GW of new generation capacity. However, this appears to include projects that are already in the making, most of them already approved by the financiers and a whole lot of the financing being new loans. It is also notable that despite EU making big claims, they are only minor contributors in most of the projects, with the total stated EU contribution being a mere modest €300m. It seems clear that ‘approving’ the projects in the AREI Board in reality has no impact on whether or not the projects happen – it seems rather an attempt at rubber stamping to get the ‘African’ blessing, and public relations exercise for some parties.

Approving’ projects without carefully assessing them against the AREI criteria flouts the core principles of the initiative. Furthermore, the implication of existing, rather than new projects, being pushed through the AREI Board means that there will be less new and additional power provided to Africa’s people, thereby undermining AREI’s goal of ‘’10 gigawatts of new and additional energy’’ and leaving people who need it in darkness.

After dragging its feet on international climate diplomacy in recent years, the E.U. now seems to be using its former colonies in Africa to cover up its low carbon failures and greenwash its credentials on climate change.

With the help of some African heads of state, the E.U. and France pushed through the “AREI Approval’’ of the 19 energy projects, claiming the AREI screening process was not required. Such strong arm tactics by the E.U. and France discredit the Africa-led values underpinning the AREI and go against the bottom-up, globally diversified, principles enshrined in the Paris Agreement.  One would have thought the French would be keen to protect those. It’s also understood that EC and France pushed hard to place their technical experts inside the Independent Delivery Unit to directly influence the core activities of the initiative.

Questions also arise as to why the former and incoming chairs of the African Union are championing the interests of France and the E.U. over the concerns the African countries they are appointed to represent. If other African countries have just lost the opportunity (God forbid!) for billions in genuinely new and additional finance and projects that would deliver the 10GW of clean energy, we need to ask what have these leaders gained?

The appointment of both the European Commission and France to the board would furthermore displace a member from the global south, which flies in the face of the principle that there be both a developed and developing country on the board. The contradiction of the EC displacing a southern partner such as China on the board, just as they are supporting “trilateral’’ cooperation with China and Africa, is unlikely to go unnoticed by the Chinese, and undermines potential for South-South cooperation on climate change that would benefit Africa.

In the face of these events, the head of the AREI Independent Delivery Unit, the brilliant Dr. Youba Sokona, who has been at the core of conceiving, developing and leading the initiative, has felt forced to declare his resignation. Sokona, from Mali, is a leading figure with more than 40 years of experience in global energy, climate change and sustainable development. A vice-chair of the IPCC, among other high profile posts, he is the perfect person to pioneer this work.  The fact that he declared he cannot continue under current conditions shows the scale of the crisis.

African politics has historically been tainted with accusations of corruption. The last thing it needs is its flagship energy initiative of the future to be mired in scandal and outside interference. To avoid this, it is crucial that transparent processes are followed and good governance is upheld.  Instead, what we’ve seen with this current debacle is the opposite.

It is vital that the E.U. attempts to control and divert Africa’s renewable energy initiative to its own ends are opposed. It is now up to African countries to rescue it, and ensure its original vision and integrity are restored, and make it possible for Dr Sokona to resume his leadership.

Africa’s future requires it to build transparent and accountable institutions capable of addressing the needs of its people. Developed countries should be assisting this, while meeting their own obligations, particularly when genuinely African-led and African-owned initiatives arise such as AREI.

Each of the African heads of state who endorsed AREI must now fulfil their obligation to protect and advance AREI, with citizens in developed and developing countries doing the same. Strong, bold action is needed to save the initiative, revert the sad recent course of events, and regain the African-led spirit to enable AREI to achieve its goal of bringing clean and renewable energy to all Africans.

Source*

Related Topics:

Europe and U.S. Dodging Demands for Slavery Reparations*

At the World Economic Forum-Africa Germany Pitched a Dubious New G20 Corporate Strategy*

E.U. Bullies its Way through an Reciprocal Trade Access in Africa*

The U.S. Elite Troops Partner with African Forces but Pursue U.S. Aims*

Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder*