Pakistan opposition colludes with West in regime change effort

The United States, United Kingdom and European Union are pushing for regime change in Islamabad at this time.

Western governments are bribing and weaponizing corrupt opposition figures against the government of PM Imran Khan, to oust him in the current no-confidence vote.

Representatives of the US, UK and EU have openly met with opposition figures willing to collude with them and make the country subservient to the West.

Opposition figures representing foreign interests

From what the Pakistani government has said, Western agents are successfully bringing in what the British and later the CIA called "King George's cavalry" - suitcases of cash - to bribe politicians willing to betray their country. Evidence of such funding, which has gone to various members of the National Assembly of Pakistan, is set to be provided soon by the government.

The current confrontation over the no-confidence vote represents a clash between the patriotic government of the PTI and the corrupt PPP and PMLN, whose only desire is to return to power even at the cost of their country's sovereignty.

West is seeking foreign policy compliance

Western interference seems to originate from dissatisfaction in the US government at Imran Khan's refusal to accommodate US military strike bases on his country's territory, with the corrupt opposition elements particularly complaining about this. Opposition leader Shahbaz Sharif has openly said that "Imran Khan should not have said 'Absolutely Not' to the US". Another area of dissatisfaction may be the government's refusal to side with EU countries in their condemnations of Russian military action in Ukraine (although this position is no different than any of Pakistan's neighbours, the West seemed to focus on Pakistan).

It seems that disloyal and corrupt opposition figures are signalling to their Western masters that they will unquestioningly obey, even at the cost of their own nation’s interests.

An ongoing rally in Islamabad has shown the significant support for Imran Khan within Pakistan, and he has remained confident that the people are on his side. In the view of many patriotic Pakistanis, corruption and foreign puppetry have gone hand in hand and the people deserve to be free of it.

-  ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Three ways for Russia to punish the West

Due to the ongoing operation to eliminate radical anti-Russian nationalists in Ukraine, Russia is under pressure unseen since the Axis powers attacked its territory in the Second World War. The following are three decisive methods the Russian government could consider, to severely punish the NATO countries.

1. Proxy war in Ukraine

Americans have already taken the lead in making a European proxy war possible, suggesting the supply of armaments to rebels and foreign volunteers who are expected to arrive in Ukraine. They want to copy the success of foreign fighters in Afghanistan during the 1980s, believing only the Russians will suffer from this policy, but Europe could be more at risk itself. After all, this "Afghanistan" would be in Europe, and Ukraine already has a problem with armed neo-Nazis.

In fact, NATO has more reason to fear this scenario of a failed state in Ukraine than Russia.

Unlike Afghanistan, Russians are natives of this area, with large populations and families supporting Russia in parts of Ukraine. They will not be withdrawing like the Soviet Army. Returned to Russian protection, they could contribute to a strong buffer zone of sympathetic forces to help secure Russia's Ukrainian frontier. There is already the Donetsk People's Republic, DPR, and Lugansk People's Republic, LPR, able to provide Russia with mutual security against Western nationalist proxies in Ukraine. Russia could be restrictive about travel from Ukraine to Russia, but the European Union would never be so strict, having opened its doors to Ukrainian exiles and aided their travels. If Ukraine becomes a ruined failed state, filled with protracted warfare and resentment, home to many shadowy groups including local Russian proxies, Russia would be able to use Ukraine to threaten Europe, while enjoying security itself. The inevitable blockback of weapons and radical ideas into Europe from a European repeat of Afghanistan could be uncontrollable, and may result in armed insurgents seizing cities across Europe and spreading civil war and chaos. We must remember that the foreign fighters of the Afghan jihad set about trying to topple the local regimes after they returned home, for example in Algeria, being convinced of their just cause. Foreign fighters who are radicalised in Ukraine would be returning to places like Berlin and Paris.

2. Impounding ships

Russia encompasses a huge amount of land with a vast coastline, meaning potential dominance at key shipping routes, especially those icy seas along its north. It possesses a powerful navy and air forces, more than enough to interdict shipping. In retaliation for sanctions, Russia could impound all cargo ships and tankers it encounters if they belong to the countries carrying out sanctions on Russia, taking their cargo as compensation. The US already did this to Iran, and France even was bold enough to do this to Russia itself. The occasional disappearance of a tanker could produce negative economic effects and denying them passage could be just as disruptive.

With the French declaring "total economic and financial war on Russia", Russia has no reason to let any French cargo ship pass if it can intercept it. An even more aggressive option is for Russian navy vessels to actively hunt, intercept and board all vulnerable ships of the European Union and throw their cargo overboard, destroying the goods (unless they contain things that are extra valuable, such as gold!)

European countries could retaliate in a number of ways, but they would likely be too costly. Freight shipping is a notoriously cost-averse business, maintaining ageing ships often of dubious quality and crews on fairly minimal salaries, so it seems unlikely that warshups will be used for this task or assigned for protection in peacetime.

3. Turning off the gas to Europe

Russia can simply turn off the gas to Germany and instead supply its gas to China and other Asian countries. If done in combination with delaying, diverting or seizing US LNG shipments bound for Europe, this could be catastrophic to European economies, forcing them to shut down industry and even fail to keep their citizens warm.

Owing to its size and resources, Russia has proved to be invulnerable in many ways as a country, and numerous alliances have shattered when trying to take this country on.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

US intentionally breaking Europe: Kristian NF Interview

 

Europe is split along more lines than just a conflict with Russia. As Eastern European countries are protective of their national sovereignty and hold conservative views of culture, they are on a collision course with the economic powerhouses of the liberal West.

"While liberal ideologues dream of the United States of Europe, a different trend is emerging in Eastern Europe", emailed Kristian NF, a German dissident blogger also using the name Mars von Padua, in response to a question on whether divisions are forming between eastern and western member states.

Despite the division with the overbearing Brussels, countries like Poland are unlikely to find themselves back in any kind of favorable relationship with Russia. It is more likely that these nationalistic states will be stuck between Russia and the EU and supported by the Americans against both. They will fight a two-front Cold War in which they denounce liberal adversaries to the west and the speculative Russian military threat to the east.

In Kristian's words:

...one must not forget the transatlantic influence of NATO on the question of the EU. The USA in particular has a special interest in preventing Germany and Russia from getting closer. An alliance between Moscow, Berlin or even Paris would be a nightmare. That is why the Intermarium project was refocused, a geopolitical draft that was developed after the Second World War. An alliance of the Eastern European countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea under Polish leadership. The Polish Marshal Josef Pilsudski called this project Międzymorze. And this project has been under discussion again since 2016, with the Viségrad states being the first cornerstones. The USA is promoting this project, in which Hungary, Croatia and Romania, both NATO countries, are also involved. Just like the Baltic states. If this project is realized, there will be no rapprochement with Russia, but only a strong division with Western Europe. 

Poland's tensions with the EU elites, based on Kristian's assessment, arise from its aggressive foreign policy goals to establish itself as a great power. The US encourages these goals, despite the risk of Poland clashing with all its neighbors in Warsaw's attempts to establish itself as master of Eastern Europe.

These comments were received as part of an email-based Q and A series that replaced what would normally be an annual discussion among Mont Order members. The full series is available as a printout at Academia.edu, titled Mont Order November 2021 Conference Text.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

Is Twitter losing a fight with the state?

 

Social networks are fighting a lost battle against states, the new online column Lordre has argued.

A detailed post at the new blog sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin's assessment that social networking websites sought to usurp some state responsibilities and that their attempts were "fleeting".

Going into more detail than Putin, the Lordre blog identified safety and access to information as key areas of responsibility that social networks seek to replace government in managing.

States are aware of the threat of monopolization of information and culture and are pushing back. To quote the blog, "The European Union currently has the Digital Markets Act (DMA) on the cards, which apparently will prevent a tech company from trapping users in an operating system or bundle of apps that solely favours its own services (and by extension news feeds) over any other firm's."

More severe confrontation exists with states in Africa. The blog argued, "Social media companies are uniquely confrontational towards governments, lately seeing themselves as authorities on par with some governments."

The deletion of government communications deemed to be violent (even if the government is at war) represent "an ineffective and failed usurpation of the state's responsibilities, since a state can still commit or allow violence whether Twitter deletes posts about it or not."

Despite their rebellious appearance, social networks are just "weak outfits", vulnerable to being "forcibly broken up due to laws, taken offline or bankrupted by fines at any moment the state truly loses patience with them."

The new Lordre blog has taken over the website lordre.net, formerly an unofficial Mont Order website.

- ClubOfInfo

Read More »

The "People's Vote" might have a people problem - here's why

Despite gaining support from visibly large crowds of people in the UK, the "People's Vote" campaign for a second Brexit referendum vote demonstrates serious problems engaging with the broader British public on social media.

Local chapter pages of the "People's Vote" movement based on Facebook have insignificant numbers of followers and unremarkable levels of engagement, with the only page with a significant following being a single page that makes heavy use of advertising, titled People's Vote UK. In the case of this page itself, more problems appear.

Looking to the page's posts and the responses is no useful way to assess how British people actually perceive its message, since these posts are likely to have been shared by pro-EU groups and individuals. However, the group does target ads to the general public, and here its claims of popular support begin to look dubious.

Negative comments are being left when the ads appear in people's news feeds

Most visitors to People's Vote UK social media pages are leaving positive comments, but the majority seems to shift to negative comments when the group tries to target the broader public with advertising through news feeds. The resulting barrage of negativity has an effect of drowning out the voices of exasperated EU supporters, who can't tell why they are suddenly faced with offensive comments.

This could be the work of trolls trying to demoralize the pro-EU movement in the UK. But, if so, why are such comments only flooding the page's content when the group tries to advertise to the public? One explanation is that the negative response to the People's Vote campaign actually originates with the campaign's own target audience - the British public.

What is described above hints that the poll data supposedly showing a shift in favor of the UK remaining in the European Union could be dodgy, and there are numerous ways such data could be seriously flawed.

"Leave" may simply have turned quiet and content in their victory, rather than actually losing supporters as the "Remain" camp is fond of claiming. When directly provoked by flooding their news feeds on Facebook they do appear to respond viciously as described above.

Data favoring "Remain" could be flawed because, as well as more eagerly taking part in polls, EU supporters never stopped campaigning. This creates the unrealistic sensation that they have more influence or power, or have now won the debate. Their desire to keep their cause alive through constant adverts, polls, petitions, columns, etc. is clear. The "Leave" campaign, in contrast, is undertaking no similar project to maintain public backing and isn't even watching the polls. Their sole position is that the debate is over and they already won.

So, even if polls and news stories supporting a people's vote do show an accurate cross-section of the population, these are a poor basis to predict a pro-EU victory in a second referendum. The anti-EU side has yet to counterattack or produce its own new slogans and talking points, as it is too busy in power. A decisive lead for pro-EU forces in the polls, while the other side is not campaigning, might become irrelevant as soon as the other side begins a counter-campaign if its plans are really contested.

Treat all this as speculation. Unfortunately, comments on Facebook ads are extremely difficult to capture or prove because Facebook withholds the data once ads go inactive and takes them out of the page's feed itself, allowing posts that receive negative responses to quickly be buried while the page only displays posts that received positive responses. However, you can easily view the comments for yourself if you catch the ads while they are running or see them in your news feed.

Don't take our word for it. Give it a go!

#article: Detailed review: #Corbyn (2016) - @hjbentham review of @leninology book https://t.co/ecTQwCEdif #bestreads pic.twitter.com/mckGAPWZS3 #UK #Labour

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 31, 2019

The clubof.info Blog

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Read More »

'Britain needs to retain EU standards'

The Blog

Pointing to environment-threatening "big business lobbyists" looking to exploit Brexit, grassroots campaign group 38 Degrees called on members to support its "People Powered Brexit".

Results of 38 Degrees polling show members of the public overwhelmingly voting to keep EU protections and regulations on wildlife and consumer products in place.

38 Degrees: DIY Brexit

In addition, however, those polled wanted to use the Brexit to ensure Britain does not have to comply with US treaties benefiting corporate interests over the population such as TTIP. Over 91% believed "The UK must not be subject to the TTIP trade deal between the EU and the US... if it passes before the UK officially leaves the EU. Any deal we make with the EU must not make us subject to TTIP."

Those polled favored overall mirroring EU regulation while avoiding including the UK in EU treaties. Results show people saying any new UK treaties made "should maintain current safety standards" for all products when it comes to trade.

Whistleblowers chilled by DNC deaths: The BlogWikiLeaks sources are "concerned" by the murder of a Democratic... https://t.co/rndplZEi38

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 16, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Turkish regime's "collapse" possible

The Blog

Despite the triumph of the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan over coup plotters in Turkey, sociological expert Immanuel Wallerstein still foresees possible collapse for the AKP-led government.

"It seems unlikely that Turkey can stem a bubbling up of internal opposition, which might lead to a total collapse of the regime", Wallerstein wrote Monday 01 August 2016 in a commentary on the "rise and fall" of the Turkish president.

Wallerstein was commenting on the apparent repressive measures applied by President Erdoğan against his opponents in the wake of the failed coup. Overall, Wallerstein's analysis of the political developments in Turkey seems balanced:

"When Erdoğan says that Gülen had long plotted the coup, his arguments seem plausible. It is for this reason that all the opposition parties – CHP, NMH, and HDP (left party with a strong base in Kurdish areas) – went into the streets to oppose the coup. When, however, the CHP and HDP plus commentators in Turkey and elsewhere say that Erdoğan seemed prepared to use the excuse of the coup to purge the country of every conceivable possible opponent, these arguments also seem plausible. In particular, his proposal to change the constitution to create an “executive presidency” is considered as leading to a dictatorship."

Wallerstein's comment about the "total collapse of the regime" is based on his analysis that Turkey's two biggest strengths in international relations at present - its control of refugee flows to Europe and the critical role of its airfields to the United States and NATO - may be "illusory". The "world context" has changed, Wallerstein writes.

"Erdoğan may have overplayed his hand" considering the way his efforts to reconcile with the Kurds and Armenians and unseat Bashar al-Assad from power turned into such failures. These losses, in addition to any further hostility in relations with the EU, the United States or Russia, may still turn the tide against his regime and result in him falling from power quite rapidly.

Garrison Center takes WikiLeaks side: The BlogDirector of the Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journa... https://t.co/JRLX1Gz1yq

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) August 2, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

The West should end its own terrorism

The Blog

Rejecting the notion that the West is simply a helpless victim of murder and mayhem committed by radical (and usually Muslim) groups, Garrison Center director Thomas Knapp gives a useful reminder.

From his article, posted on 15 July in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Nice, France:

Western (including American and French)  troops have killed hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, in the Middle East and Central Asia just since 1991.  Many (maybe most) have been innocent civilians. Their families, friends, countrymen and co-religionists have, unsurprisingly, responded in kind. We should stop supporting military adventurism not just because it inevitably results in “blowback” and dead bodies back home, but because it’s as wrong when “we” do it as it is when “they” do it.

It is indeed a hard heart that kills. Tools are mere distraction. Hearts — and minds — are where change begins."

With yet another atrocity occurring in the defenseless and open EU (many people forget the dates of individual terrorists acts now, as terrorism becomes a fact of life within the failing EU), Knapp expects more ridiculous measures by states. They may include "no drive lists" to prevent anyone with possibly radical views from driving heavy trucks, the Garrison Center director wrote on Friday.

Indeed, one consistent behavior of Western states seems to be increased monitoring and bans aimed at previously innocuous devices.

Pressure cookers, vehicles, and possibly even metal bars can expect to be deemed "weapons of mass destruction" in future, as politicians want the whole population in padded cells to enjoy "freedom and democracy".

Israel tries to drag Facebook into war?: The BlogFrom the Garrison Center on 11 July 2016, reacting to a rece... https://t.co/WTF2IKEQE3

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 15, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Immanuel Wallerstein reacts to Brexit

The Blog

Immanuel Wallerstein offered the following selected comments on the outcome of Britain's referendum to leave the European Union.

The full commentary is available at Wallerstein's website and these quotes are used only for informative purposes to break the key details down.

"What are the matters underlying this debate? There are essentially four: popular anger at the so-called Establishment and its parties; the geopolitical decline of the United States; the politics of austerity; and identity politics. All of them have contributed to the turmoil...

"There is little doubt that popular anti-Establishment anger is a strong force. It has often erupted when economic conditions are uncertain, as they surely are today. If this seems a stronger motivation now than previously, it is probably because economic uncertainty is far greater than in the past...

"anti-Establishment movements have not won out everywhere or consistently"

"The geopolitical consequences of Brexit are probably more important. Great Britain’s withdrawal from Europe deals a further blow to the ability of the United States to maintain its dominance in the world-system. Great Britain has been in many ways the indispensable geopolitical ally (or is it agent?) of the United States in Europe, in NATO, in the Middle East, and vis-à-vis Russia. There is no substitute...

"Austerity is obviously nobody’s desired policy, except for the ultra-rich who alone profit from it. The fear of increased austerity, as promised by the British government, surely contributed significantly to the move for Brexit, which was promoted as a way to reduce austerity...

"Brexit is important as a symptom but not as a cause of turmoil."

"Since the turmoil is part of a chaotic structural crisis in the modern world-system... We are not paying enough attention to the middle run, where the long-run successor world-system (or systems) will be decided, and where the decision remains dependent on what we do in the middle-run struggle."

Criminal tries to become US President: The BlogIn an obvious attempt to prop up war criminal sadist Hillary C... https://t.co/YyTKB5Nbza

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) July 5, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Brexit will be "An Exit To Nowhere"

Ryan Calhoun

Elites will never be stripped of their privilege by the method of their ascension. The impoverished will never stop being robbed of their potential by handing it over to new elites. The decision by the majority of voting British citizens to leave the European Union has been seen as a mandate against unaccountable technocratic governors in the EU. Objections to this technocracy are not always pretty though. In place of a centralized system of control in Europe, those who voted to leave the EU wish for the tools of power to be shifted back to Britain.

No matter their intentions, and really no matter which side of the vote British citizens found themselves on, very little has changed for the control people have over their own lives. The nationalists wish to take back control of “their borders”. The economic isolationists want control of “their trade”. The Remain voters wish to sustain “their” unity with Europe. No matter the reason, the commonality here is one mass collective illusion. It is the illusion of democratic control and representation. Despite all evidence to the contrary people think this system exists in order to support them, and that a referendum is the best way to assert control.

Democracy has divested common people of control. It has made the individual’s decision making orders of magnitude from mattering. Your participation in the voting process is inconsequential. It may be one of the most inconsequential activities a normal person can engage in. But even if it wasn’t, even if the direction of your vote counted in the re-shuffling of the deck, it will never be you holding the cards. A resentment of technocracy has merely led to a reversion to an earlier model of false representation of your interests. The same institutions that will now decide the fate of borders and trade had previously negotiated away that control, and your opinion on it could not have mattered less.

Now those who had felt so disenfranchised hope to divest others of control, namely the immigrants they begrudgingly deal with now as neighbors. But the logic that denies the right to an open system of migration and residency for immigrants is also an attack on the freedom of natives. National borders advertised as “theirs”, as a tool of sovereignty for the people who call Britain home, is in fact the opposite. It is the tool of British elites. Those with the most political sway in Britain will now get to decide who citizens can communicate with, who they can employ, who they can live with, which countries they are permitted to travel to. It is also the tool of foreign elites, who will carve up trade agreements based on national boundaries rather than on the true will of the individuals. The right to a referendum on this matter is a right to a whispered suggestion in a sea of other whispered suggestions. Will these suggestions enhance your power? No. They merely change some terms of negotiations between the world’s most powerful economic and political interests.

The right to self-determine begins and ends with you. Any domestic ruler of yours telling you otherwise is selling your birthright back to you as a democratic privilege at 1/64,000,000th the value. If you wish to look for the true spirit of sovereign behavior and self-directed action look to your immigrant peers. Look to those who saw the conditions of their homeland they were told represented them, that defined them, that gave power to them. They left. They willed a better life for themselves regardless of borders. The European Union facilitates this behavior for those citizens of member nations, but it too is merely granting technocratic authorization on a matter they have no concern over. Those who cross borders legally and those who cross illegally have an equal moral right to self determination. The EU has acted inclusive of European travel and trade, but that same loathsome bureaucracy prevents you from networking with anyone unpermitted to cross its borders. While nationalist and federalist economic policies ensure the individual citizen’s disempowerment and impoverishment the same power structure is also trapping refugees into encampments rife with human rights violations. The EU is using its unjust and sweeping power to financially strong arm other nations into obedience with its migration policies. What of the sovereignty of people in these countries? Doctors Without Borders recently refused further funding from the EU in their efforts to ensure the health and safety of refugees, objecting to this form of bribery to aid human rights violations. Here is their grievance, from a press release:

“Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East. These deals would impose trade and development aid cuts on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten refugee generating countries.”

Put aside your nationalism. Put aside your false hopes for democratic resolutions. These are false idols. These representatives of your identity you think you have chosen were decided for you by people you have never known, for reasons beyond your interests or understanding. It is time to not reject globalism, but to make it own up to the name. The power to communicate, to network and trade, to travel and connect has never been greater. It should be you that benefits and not some fraudulent system of representatives and delegates. Nations, federations, trading zones carved up by multinationals and political opportunists have grown stronger by keeping the world divided. The Leave Campaign merely shifted the balance. It is time to dismantle it. It is time to demand no less than full access to the social, economic, and technological capacities stolen from you and sold back to capitalist and democratic institutions which have no place in a truly global age. It has kept you down. It has kept the people of your nation and of Europe down. It has nearly destroyed regions of the world and created refugees out of people who wanted nothing more than their home and their communities to prosper as you do. Brexit is over. Let’s start talking about a true exit from this nightmare.

Originally published 28 June, Center for a Stateless Society

https://c4ss.org/content/45494

Read More »

Brexit can't affect freedom of movement

The Blog

Contrary to much hysteria in the media and stock market, Britain has not actually left the European Union.

It's not even clear how Britain will leave the EU or how long it will take. Many fear for freedom of movement of people after this referendum and UK withdrawal from the EU. However, the effect on freedom of movement will in fact be up to the negotiations between the UK and EU.

Students and workers traveling between the EU and the UK will not have their travel plans affected in any way even after Britain's total withdrawal from the EU. To quote a government research summary made available the day after the referendum:

... the UK and other European governments would likely favour a solution that protects the immigration rights of people already exercising their free movement rights, given the widespread disruption and administrative burden that retrospective changes could cause.

This means the British state is fully aware of the chaos that could be caused by halting the freedom of movement already being exercised by millions of people. All will remain in place, without being threatened by Britain's exit from the EU.

Britain's withdrawal from the EU may in fact open up more opportunities for migration by Commonwealth citizens. According to the government research summary, "gaining greater control over EEA immigration as a result of leaving the EU could (or should) lead to enhanced scope to prioritise Commonwealth immigration". This is similar to the enhanced scope to pursue trade with countries outside the European Union after leaving the EU.

While freedom of movement for existing residents was not a concern to Brexit campaigners, migration was a key issue, viewed as a source of social unrest and potential influx of terrorist agents from war-torn regions.

Assange "pretty much" supports Brexit: The BlogIn a televised interview, WikiLeaks founder and political pris... https://t.co/GkrT9ZPJBR

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) June 17, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

EU breakup predicted to follow Brexit

The Blog

With the shocking, rebellious decision of the British people to leave the European Union in a recent referendum, analyses predicting the European Union's breakup should be revisited.

Describing the potential "leave" vote as a big loss for Britain's financial elite, on May 15 2015, historical expert and sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein had stated (as reported at this blog), "public opinion in more countries than Great Britain has become less and less enthusiastic about the EU and parties calling for a withdrawal are gaining strength."

Wallerstein wrote, also, "the EU is divided about how to respond to Russia’s reaffirmation of its political role in Europe, especially in relation to Ukraine. Adding a Brexit to this mix of difficulties might be just too much for the EU. The EU and the eurozone are a house of cards, which might simply collapse".

The EU is now in an economic and political war on two fronts, much as Hitler and Napoleon faced. With the loss of Britain, further political pressure on the EU over the Ukrainian crisis would be extremely demoralizing for remaining EU countries like Germany and France, who remember bitter historic defeats at British and Russian hands. It could be too much, with the EU overwhelmed by the economic and political consequences.

Such an analysis, however, was prior to the "Grexit" vote on Greek withdrawal, which had resulted in Greeks voting to remain in the European Union. The financial effects of a UK withdrawal, meanwhile, are potentially more extreme than Grexit due to Britain's eminent position in the EU and the world economy at large.

Also successfully predicted by Wallerstein was that Cameron would regret his electoral successes, which would ultimately strand him in failures and defeats even despite Scots voting to preserve the Union. With Cameron's resignation now certain, Wallerstein's brutal assessment of 2015-2016 political turbulence has proven true, just as his prediction of growing antistatism and regime collapse in the United States will come true.

Analysis by a different author at the US-based Stratfor intelligence firm just two days before the June 2016 referendum predicted:

If Britain leaves the European Union, it would throw the Continent into yet another political and economic crisis, giving Euroskeptic forces greater ammunition against the bloc and voters fewer reasons to defend it... regardless of what happens June 23, Britain has set a precedent that Brussels cannot stop other EU members from following.

While the French President, for example, has already rejected a request to hold a "Frexit" referendum, it seems abundantly likely that demoralized French and German officials will eventually have to agree to similar votes. With the loss of the second biggest economy in the EU already decided, any departure of its remaining big economies will simply caused the bloc to collapse.

The EU's failures to arrive at any common ground to save relations with Britain could signal greater problems in western supranational organizations and lead to the eventual dissolution of NATO.

Islamic faith irrelevant to Omar Mateen: The BlogCommenting on the work of investigators looking at the attac... https://t.co/s7UlFPXs9b

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) June 24, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Assange "pretty much" supports Brexit

The Blog

In a televised interview, WikiLeaks founder and political prisoner Julian Assange expressed the view that he supports Britain leaving the European Union.

In the interview, Assange broke down the different camps relating to the EU referendum, ultimately favoring the minority "left Brexit" faction in the debate.

While right wing campaigners who support Brexit want the "old empire" and right wing campaigners who oppose Brexit want the "new empire", Assange characterized left wing opponents of Brexit as reactionaries who think "another world is not really possible". This, he contrasted with the more optimistic left who do believe "another world is possible".

The phrase "another world is possible" is associated with the alter-globalization movement and the World Social Forum, attended by Latin American leaders and global sociologists and left wing academics including Noam Chomsky and Immanuel Wallerstein throughout the years. This sentiment is not necessarily against globalization, but against the negative globalization imposed by the US government and corporations on the world's poor and in favor of positive social globaliztion and mixing.

When pressed on whether he supported Brexit, Assange replied "pretty much". He judged that the British regime is using the European Union as "political cover" for human rights abuses and its subservience to the US, including during his own political persecution by the state.

UK oversees cluster bombing in Yemen: The BlogAs "hospitals, schools, markets and mosques" in Yemen were targ... https://t.co/c6kcTtRfZ6

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) June 14, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Brexit "beneficial" to trade: committee

The Blog

According to a British Parliamentary committee report, leaving the European Union could actually put Britain at certain economic advantages.

Various media have pointed out the battle of often inaccurate "claims and counter-claims made by both the leave and remain sides", as Treasury Select Committee Chairman Andrew Tyrie MP termed them.

The video below from 38 Degrees shows the endless trading of truths, half-truths and exaggerations by the two campaigns over the future of Britain and the EU.

Tyrie acknowledged, "the Committee confined itself to looking at economic costs and benefits. But this is only part of the story. For some, other issues are more important. As the founder of Leave.eu put it, for him: "this isn't about pounds and pence, it's about democracy"."

The "In" campaign tends to prey on economic fears. Head of Labour's "In" campaign Alan Johnson MP stated, "The economic evidence isn’t so much piling up as becoming a landslide: leaving Europe would hurt Britain’s economy." Anti-democratic war criminal Tony Blair said just holding the EU membership referendum itself is an "enormous economic problem".

However, there are actually strong arguments that leaving Europe would be economically wise and put Britain on a path to restoring its much-depleted international influence and wealth.

Britain outside the EU could enjoy what Tyrie called "potential beneficial opportunities". As the report stated, "high-quality trade agreements with countries like China, India and the United States" may become increasingly possible to sign after the United Kingdom is no longer constrained by EU regulations and dedication to the European market.

It is certain that there would be a major international realignment if Britain was outside the European Union. Whether Britain will become closer to the American regime or be pushed further away from it towards friendlier relations with emerging economies such as China is not clear.

Memorial Day for the military's victims: The BlogWriting ahead of Memorial Day in the US, Garrison Center dir... https://t.co/zqXQ4nvPiA

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) May 27, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

'Nuclear terror' magnet isn't Pakistan

The Blog

In Europe, the US and the west in general, many professed experts would say Pakistan is the weakest link when it comes to nuclear security, and the most likely target of terrorists trying to obtain a nuclear weapon.

However as explained in a report at the Pakistan-based Voice of East website based on facts covered earlier by the Guardian, Pakistan isn't the location where terrorists would obtain nuclear materials. In fact, Europe is.

Terrorists are frequently recruiting and operating with impunity inside Europe without any clear strategy from the EU or NATO, who instead try to cynically benefit by letting them go to Syria to attack their enemy, Bashar al-Assad's troops.

Only the most recent consequences of this were the Paris and Brussels attacks by the so-called "Islamic" State (Daesh). The atrocities marked the return of the unspeakable terrorism for "democracy" that Europe stupidly still justifies and exports for consumption in Syria as an alternative to Assad's government.

According to facts published at the Guardian, Daesh-associated terrorist Salah Abdeslam possessed sensitive information on a Germany nuclear waste facility. Whether the ultimate intent was to cause nuclear disaster there, obtain data on the locations of fissile material, or construct a "dirty bomb", it is a closer call than anything that has been reported in Pakistan of late.

More consequentially, there was a recent scare in Belgium that resulted in iodine capsules being issued to the population in the hopes of fighting radiation sickness after a "dirty bomb".

However, a "dirty bomb" is considered to be no threat as long as you have a fully functioning suit of skin, according to scientists. The US government, and apparently Belgium too, have failed to note this when telling the media over and over again that terrorists may detonate a "dirty bomb" - probably to justify criminal surveillance and human rights abuses by NATO countries.

The likelihood of a Daesh nuclear attack that would kill one or more people is very unlikely, under any circumstances. Daesh lacks the codes or knowledge to detonate any state's nuclear devices or the rockets to deliver such a weapon on target, and lacks the equipment to safely dismantle and handle nuclear devices. It is unlikely that nuclear waste is stored in areas proximate to significant populated sites, making an attack on nuclear waste sites not very threatening.

Despite that more vulnerabilities exist in their own countries, westerners still consume anti-Pakistan propaganda such as statements from regional nemesis India that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not secure and could easily be obtained by Daesh.

Will global exploitation, economic sanctions and #poverty survive spread of #Nanotechnology? https://t.co/0HCZDCaLi8 pic.twitter.com/zoOMm46kZU

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) April 27, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

US, NATO scared by Brexit referendum

The Blog

Britain's withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit) would undermine the military goals of the American regime in Europe, Britain's Foreign Affairs Committee admits in a report.

Meanwhile, Britain's own capability to defend itself would be left unaffected by withdrawing from the European Union. The insolent United States would try to ignore Britain, bypassing London to try and control European governments directly - in its continuing hopes to use them as human shields in confrontations with Russia or other states.

The following vital points in the 26 April report "Implications of the referendum on EU membership for the UK's role in the world" were admitted, and deserve attention when it comes to assessing Britain's future relations with the American regime if Britain leaves the EU:

"Since EU defence co-operation remains intergovernmental, withdrawal from the EU should arguably have a relatively minor impact on the UK’s long-term defensive posture and capabilities...

"UK withdrawal from the EU would eventually result in a “diminution of Britain’s influence on both sides of the Atlantic...

"President Obama and his Administration have made it clear that they would prefer the UK to remain inside the EU, where it is generally seen to promote Atlanticist policies (such as TTIP, which the UK has championed in part to bolster the political relationship between the US and EU)...

"outcomes contain risks for the NATO... With the US increasingly looking to its European partners to shoulder more of the burden for their own defence, a weak and divided EU might unsettle the NATO alliance...

"the EU could become more coherent and unified, but—in the absence of the UK—might do so in ways that threaten to decouple it from NATO, damaging the integrity of the transatlantic alliance."

The report omits the fact that Britain would be safer without having strong ties with the extremist regime in Washington, puppet governments in Europe, and the wars they are waging to support the US government and military's vanity. In particular since the 9/11 attacks, the American regime has conflated its own security with its NATO allies and used them as cannon fodder in Afghanistan, relying on the "alliance" to sacrifice the British people without their consent.

Meanwhile, the British Tory government has continued to celebrate its loyalty to Washington, as can be seen from former Foreign Secretary William Hague's belief that there must always be a "pro-American regime" in London and his recent remarks defending President Obama's right to meddle in UK politics.

While the government report uses a negative tone in its view of the "transatlantic alliance" failing, such failure would bring joy to most of the world's population, who have been stomped on and oppressed for years by western forces and live in fear of the west's increasing weapons of mass destruction. As such, people wanting to reduce the US regime's aggression will likely be voting to leave the EU.

Audio book of "Catalyst" coming?: The BlogThe Catalyst thesis this blog is based on may be coming in audio for... https://t.co/C5zrfnwJfb

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) April 22, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Would a Brexit make any difference?

The Blog

Britain's future in the European Union has been on a lot of minds leading up to the 23 June referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member.

One view is that it ultimately doesn't matter. It is a hollow debate, with either outcome of the Brexit referendum doing nothing to prevent the further subversion of political power in the UK for the interests of corporations.

Blogger Steve Topple draws attention to numerous media materials featuring his work and the European Union in a recent post on 20th March, including seven articles and one video. In one article, Topple notes, "I don’t think a vote either way will make one damned bit of difference as both the EU and UK Governments, as institutions, are controlled by forces greater than themselves – the multinational corporations." He promises to sleep through the entire thing, not caring much for either outcome.

A similarly abstaining view is given at Beliefnet, where a post takes note of the threat to scientific research funding and welfare posed by Britain exiting the EU, but at the same time praises the referendum as "a crucial step in pressuring the EU to rethink its future". The post speculates that Britain leaving the EU could destroy the EU, something that is not in fact the intention of Brexit campaigners who are concerned merely with Britain's future.

What if US elections actually worked?: The BlogIn a recent short post, Garrison Center director Thomas Knapp s... https://t.co/etCutaH7i4

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) March 18, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Topple: deport all bigots, not refugees

The Blog

Op-ed writer Steve Topple has appealed to Europeans to learn their history lessons again before calling for Nazi-like collective measures against refugees fleeing conflict zones such as Syria.

Topple does not hesitate to point out the west is to blame for the war in Syria. The west must make space for refugees, as it must face the consequences of its actions and atone for what it has done.

The post accuses Western societies of ignoring their own hand in creating a crisis for themselves, which they now try to shirk responsibility for by wanting to turn refugees away:

The anti-refugee rhetoric appeared to be systematically ratcheted up in nearly every country across the continent, without the smallest whiff of hypocrisy that the West’s agenda had largely contributed to this man-made crisis.

Elaborating on this responsibility, Topple writes that "Western foreign policy is partly to blame for the situation in the Middle East, which is rapidly spiralling out of control. Decade after decade we have geopolitically been led by our unquenchable thirst for oil and gas, regardless of the consequences." Amidst the hysteria spreading through Europe at the inevitable globalization of displacement and misery caused by western military aggression, many have called for all refugees (with particular emphasis on Muslims) to be deported.

Topple has an alternative suggestion of who deport:

Expatriate all the loathsome, lobotomised right-wing bigots and replace them with refugees. 

Because I, for one, would rather we have a diverse, socially-rich, colourful society where the quality of life for everyone was far greater, than an insular, closeted, angry and scared country where the opinions of loathsome, vile bigots whose views belong in a 1970’s sitcom were the norm.

Tackling the specific hysteria of many right wing groups and commentators, Topple strikes back at their assertions:

Oh – and the individuals screaming “Rapefugees!” and “Women and girls aren’t safe!” when discussing refugees after we have just observed Holocaust Memorial Day, may wish to Google “Collective Responsibility” – although I doubt their myopic brains would be able to cope with the resonance.

Although many right-wing figures in the west are obsessed with World War II and the idea of supporting the Israeli apartheid regime to atone for the Holocaust, they are just as interested in committing a new genocide against Muslims. The additional inability to condemn Israeli expansion and ethnic cleansing and to support it, no matter how untenable, shows nothing was really learned from the Holocaust.

Obama's "dark money" executive order: The BlogToday, this blog takes a break from its normal severe criticism ... https://t.co/t4LkhDjC6P

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) February 2, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Obama rants 'US is not in decline!'

The Blog

US President Obama used his recent State of the Union Address to make laughable errors, issue arrogant judgments, and offend the international community.

Obama described the theory of the US economic and strategic decline - something that Britain, the European Union, most of Asia and South America, and many leading Western economists accept to be a fact - as "hot air" from political enemies.

In addition to this, Obama made rabid proclamations that the US regime is better than everyone else because it has stronger armies:

The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth, period! Period!... We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined... Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world... No nation attacks us directly or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin... people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead.

Would you believe someone who keeps saying "period"? If Obama is so sure of these statements about his country's superiority, it is strange that he feels the need to shout them out loud like Hitler. The level of contempt shown in Obama's arrogant Bush-like speech towards other countries is astonishing and should be offensive to all foreigners, not just Russian and Chinese people, who are especially degraded and cited as enemies in the speech.

To quote one character in an Isaac Asimov novel, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Everything in Obama's speech was about violence, and how America's violence is the most powerful. He wants to scare you.

Obama even made flat-out wrong and stupid statements in his speech, saying "Russia is pouring resources in to prop up Ukraine". Russia is still propping up Ukraine? Obama seems to have forgotten Ukraine's government was overthrown by the US two years ago, and now the failing Ukrainian government is being propped up him.

By bragging to the whole world that his country is better than others, Obama is not only sending a signal to Russia and China that his regime is unstable and possibly delusional, but is sending a deeply negative signal to NATO allies that the US looks down on them and they are inferior.

Evil Washington #empire forced #Ukraine to drink same poison as #Libya and die https://t.co/dRda7pmtpM pic.twitter.com/QEXLknvZxp

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 13, 2016

The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

"Brexit" may need to be prior to 2017

The Blog

The European Union is an "undemocratically corporatized leviathan" and a "proxy for the agendas of the Western Establishment".

This is the view of Steve Topple, breaking with the perspective of much of the proclaimed British political left. Captured in an op-ed at PoliticalSift on 9 October 2015, Topple advocates a strategic British exit ("Brexit") from the EU before 2017.

From the op-ed:

Everything else we now recognise – the EEC, free trade agreements, free movement of people, the ECB – have all been installed as nothing more than levers to further (and protect) the rise of globalised capitalism.

Topple quotes Robert Griffiths, who described the EU as a "monopoly capitalist United States of Europe", explaining that it has become an imperialist actor competing at an increasingly military and economic level with other powers. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which the EU and the US have been negotiating, is sure to undermine the rights of workers and the sovereignty of the public by enabling private firms to sue the public (i.e. their national government). Further criticism is aimed at the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors, both of them being corrupt as their members belong to the same financial and corporate special interest groups.

The op-ed warns us that in 2017, EU states are projected to lose their veto rights over key areas of legislation. The EU will become drastically more powerful, with a mere 55% approval for a law in the EU resulting in the implementation of the law, thereby potentially being forced down the throats of entire populations protesting such law. According to Topple, this means the surrender of popular self-determination.

Even more worrying is the fact that states will in that year become unable to withdraw from the EU, according to the EU's new rules, Topple argues. Countries will need, again, 55% approval by the other countries in order to withdraw, and their own people's demands are to be excluded from any say in the process.

@MrTopple @PoliticalSift Curious what mechanism the #EU has in mind for blocking a country unilaterally exiting after 2017. War, perhaps?

— L'Ordre (@LOrdreNet) October 11, 2015

UK Prime Minister David Cameron promised a referendum in late 2017, after the British people will have lost any sovereign right to withdraw from the EU, if Topple's analysis is solid. While the possibility of unilateral withdrawal would still exist, the EU's increasing federalization and calls to construct an army hint at a possible conflict in the event of such "separatism".

Rather than a pure chauvinist iteration of Britain demanded by rightists as the alternative to the EU, however, Topple advocates a "borderless, socialist union" based on majority citizen interests rather than minority financial interests.

Look how @reason got schooled by @c4ssdotorg's @KevinCarson1 on @Pontifex's anti-#capitalism http://t.co/H1BULRHAep pic.twitter.com/rNhrGj8rHJ

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) October 10, 2015

The clubof.info Blog

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Read More »