Friday, 25 November 2016

#NoDAPL Energy Transfers Partners are poisoning the water source for millions of Americans

Brexit did not cause a £122bn hole in Hammond's budget

The Occupation of Ireland

Boer Afrikaner Genocide in South Africa

In 1994 South Africa held its first election with universal suffrage as previously people with darker complexions did not have their right to vote recognised outside Bantustans. The Bantustans were self governing tribal homelands created by the South African National Party in their enforcement of a British colonial policy described in the Burghers creolised African language as Apartheid.

There are three main groups in South Africa. The Khoisan are indigenous South Africans described as coloured people. The Bantu are tribes descended from Nigerians and Biafrans whose ancestors travelled to South Africa with the military expansion of the Bantu empire. Then there are the Afrikaners who are descended from not only the former but Johann Van Riebeck's labourers and slaves of the multinational corporation Dutch East India Company as well. The Burghers, the slaves and labourers, arrived with the corporate colonists in the seventeenth century. Their descendants identify themselves as African thus they call themselves Afrikaners. After the British Empire's annexation of the Cape t
he Burghers were being repressed due to their sect of Christianity, and as such fled inland, during the Great Trek, as well as many other minor treks, in order to have their own Republic. After this period, the British won wars against the Boers, in order to take control of the whole of South Africa in 1910, until 1961, when South Africa gained independence in a referendum and became a Republic once again, from being in a Union with Britain from 1910.

Between 1948 and 1990 the South African National Party enforced a policy of separate development where possible. This led to segregation, racism, violence and oppression. In 1956 the opposition protest party the African National Congress adopted the Kliptown Freedom Charter which explicitly said “the people of South Africa black and white together equals”. This was incompatible of the SANP's practices of subjecting exclusively Bantu people to pass laws or segregation where possible.

On 21 March 1960 the ANC organised a protest at a police station in the Transvaal. Different sources say different things there are those who assert that the protest at Sharpeville was peaceful and non violent whereas others counter that masonry had been thrown at the police. There is no doubt however that sixty nine protesters were shot dead. Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo and others set up uMKhonto we sizwe, translates as spear of the nation, as the ANC's armed wing. Mandela was arrested when the CIA tipped off Pretoria police in 1964.

Mandela was released after negotiations with Pieter Botha then Freidrich Willem De Klerk in 1990. In 1994 after negotiations between SANP and ANC the ANC were elected. Due to what happened previously Afrikaners were demonised as irreformable racists by the world media despite the fact an Afrikaner authored the universal declaration of human rights, despite the fact they gave the world heart transplants and despite the fact they had voted at a ratio of two to one against Apartheid in the 1992 South African referendum.

Since 1994 there have been more farmers killed in South Africa than all of the farmers killed in Kenya, Angola, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Namibia since all those countries achieved their independence.

Under the African National Congress's Apartheid regime there are over seven hundred thousand violent crimes a year from which all the people of South Africa suffer. The murder rate is 31, however it was 35 and indicators show it could be rising to its highest ever at the present, and there are 47 people murdered every single day in South Africa. To put that into context the violent society that is the United States of America has a murder rate of 4.5 and the world's most violent society Honduras has a murder rate of 90 which was 91. The Afrikaner murder rate is 97. To articulate the previous sentiment in a more rudimentary fashion Afrikaners are being slaughtered in Die Volksmoord at a faster rate than Hondurans are being killed. Then consider that the murder rate of South African farmers is 134. Equally horrific is that a person has a fifty percent chance of being raped when they leave their residence and a person is raped every seventeen seconds in South Africa.

South Africa has 700% more farm attacks than the international average. One in every eight of those farm attacks in end in murder. On 14th February 2003 president Thabo Mbeki announced the commandos would be stood down and that the Rural Protection Plan would be cut without consulting the South African Police Service's head of rural security. This when between one and a half thousand and two thousand farmers had been murdered out of the last ten thousand farm attacks which had all happened within the decade previous to the announcement. The Commandos were 45,000 strong in 186 units and were able to carry out ninety thousand operations every two years. Thabo Mbeki promised an alternative policing structure called the Sector Policing Service. As of 2015 no such structure exists.

How are the Bantu people of South Africa treated under this modern Apartheid dictatorship? To answer this one could do worse than look at an article by Niq Mhlongo, a Zulu gentleman, who is a City Press journalist. It is titled “SA's black apartheid” and it can be found on the website. It describes how he was asked for identification, searched then was forced by police to pass a language and accent test.

Basically he had to speak a South African language in a South African accent to prove he was South African. He then states in the article that it is a curse to be Bantu in South Africa. He then articulates the belief in the minds of racist South African Bantu people that Bantu people from other countries are darker complexioned, less cultured and less intelligent than Bantu people in South Africa.

He explains that people in South Africa flying or travelling to other countries on the continent they still say that they are going to Africa. What is revealing though is that Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho are not considered foreign countries in South Africa. This can be explained by the fact there are domestic Tswana, Swazi and Sotho populations in South Africa. In another article on the News 24 website by Netwerk 24 opposition party Democratic Alliance leader Mmusi Maimane condemned the African National Congress for trampling on Nelson Mandela's dream of a democratic South Africa, implementing Apartheid and not creating jobs and opportunities for unemployed South Africans.

Another little known fact is that seventy percent of victims raped during farm attacks are Bantu people. Sixty seven percent of Bantu children and seventy six percent of Bantu people in South Africa live in poverty. It would be a fiction to suggest that only one or a few selected groups suffer in South Africa. While there are thirty two million Bantu people living in poverty there are also a million Afrikaners living in poverty including the half a million Afrikaners who live in concentration camps like countless Bantu people and Khoisan people in South Africa. Khoisan people have the highest incarceration rate amongst South African ethnic groups and this is a particular hurtful grievance as Khoisan people were the original indigenous inhabitants of South Africa. Bikkisdorp is where a lot of Khoisan people reside in the Cape Flats and was the inspiration for the dystopic vision of South Africa in the film District 9.

There are a million Afrikaners left in employment. The ANC is using “positive discrimination” and “affirmative action” in their Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment legislation. The stated aim is to increase employment among Bantu people and Khoisan people. However in practice it has resulted in Afrikaner exclusion from the job market. This is not surprising as there is nothing positive about discrimination. Basil Brookeborough former Prime Minister of the six county state in Ulster promoted positive discrimination by encouraging businesses to “employ good Protestant lads and lasses” despite the fact he employed many Catholics on his estate in Fermanagh. This resulted in job advertisements saying “Catholics need not apply” and “Nationalists need not apply”. The message that BBBEE sends out is Afrikaners need not apply and Boers need not apply.

Red October is a protest movement in South Africa which campaigns for Afrikaner human rights. Theresa Oakley Smith made a disgracefully racist dismissal of it by calling it “White October”. In the same sentence she made another racist slur by dismissing legitimate Khoisan grievances as a “little coloured thing”. Most alarmingly her job description is “diversity officer”.

Apartheid was a segregationist separate development system British imperialists first enforced in South Africa in Natalia during 1857 when they levied a tax on Bantu people and polygamists. This was fourteen years after annexing the Boer republic. From 1857 until 1993 there were a total of sixty acts of legislation that discriminated against people with darker complexions in South Africa. There are now over a hundred and twenty laws discriminating against people with lighter complexions in South Africa so that now there are twice as many racist laws than there ever were under the South African National Party's Apartheid regime.

The Afrikaner genocide is at stage seven of the eight stages of genocide which is extermination. To put that into full perspective Yemen is at the seventh of the eight stages of genocide. Summarising South Africa, Yemen and Palestine are all at stage seven of eight and stage nine of the ten stages of genocide. The graph below shows this.
Since 1994 there have been one thousand two hundred and sixty three violent attacks by Afrikaners on Bantu people compared to seventy nine thousand eight hundred and fifteen attacks by Bantu people on Afrikaners.

What is revealing is not only comparing the current Apartheid regime with the previous Apartheid regime but also comparing the former with two traumatic episodes in South African history. The Anglo Zulu war was a war fought between Britain and Kwazulu in Natal and it had a third of the victims that the South African National Party regime had. Then there is the second Boer freedom war which had a third of the victims that the ANC regime has at the present. There is also a disparity between the Anglo Zulu war and the second Boer freedom war as well as a huge disparity between the South African National Party's Apartheid regime and the African National Congress's Apartheid regime.
Another indicator of the effects of Apartheid under the ANC is the ethnic demographic map of South Africa. It shows clear segregation in terms of ethnic majority areas and enclaves. It is clear that the Khoisan live in the Northern Cape, the Western Cape and the most western points of the Orange Free State and Eastern Cape. It is clear that while there are Bantu minorities in the east of the Northern Cape that they are the majority in Bophuthatswana, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, the Transvaal, Orange Free State, Natal and the Eastern Cape. It clear to see the majority of Indians live in the Northern Cape as well as substantial populations in Western Cape and Eastern Cape. The are also Indian enclaves in Natal, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Bophuthatswana, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. The Afrikaners are most located in the Transvaal, Orange Free State, Bophuthatswana, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. There are Afrikaner enclaves in Natal, Northern Cape , Western Cape and Eastern Cape.

The colour key for the ethnic demographic map below are Bantu are red, Khoisan are turquoise, Afrikaners are yellow and Indians are grey. Alongside to the right is a provincial map to prove the aforementioned geographical descriptions.

Then there is the Economic Freedom Fighters leader and former ANCYL leader Julius Malema who has twice been convicted of hate speech. This was for his singing of Ayasaba Amagwala which means Cowards are scared. Note that it is pejorative. The chorus of the song is a repetitive refrain Dubula iBhunu which means Shoot the Boer. Another verse contains the lyrics these dogs are raping, another dehumanising insult towards Afrikaners.

Nor is it the only insult Malema has hurled towards Afrikaners. He has chanted the lyrics Peter Mokaba used at the Chris Hani commemoration to whip the crowd into a frenzy “Kill the Boer, the Farmer”. Since his hate speech convictions Malema has toned it down to “Kiss the Boer, the Farmer” however he quickly follows this up with mimicry of gunshots. He has also said all white people are criminals.

Then there is the current president Jacob Zuma who recently stated that all South Africa's problems started when Johann Van Reibeck arrived on the Cape. Zuma has also sang a song with the lyrics Dubula iBhunu but it was not a struggle song. He sang the lyrics “the Cabinet dubula ibhunu” and the South African executive under the National Party were Boers so they would not be shooting their fellow Boers. The logical conclusion that must be drawn is that Zuma was singing about the ANC cabinet shooting the Boers.

There is also the Pan African Congress slogan “One Boer One Bullet”. This along with further dehumanising of Afrikaners by calling them cockroaches is incompatible with the hopes that Nelson Mandela stated for South Africans to aim for. He said “I have fought against White domination and I have fought against Black domination” in his famous I am prepared to die speech at the Rivonia trial. He then clearly told the Congress Of South African Trade Unions “If the ANC does to you what the Apartheid government did to you, then you must do the ANC what you did to the Apartheid government”.

It would be wise to remember the words from Mandela's inauguration “Never, never again shall it be that this beautiful land experiences the oppression of one by another.” South Africa is currently experiencing the oppression of one by another. One is the people of South Africa and another is Jacob Zuma and his cruel ANC Apartheid regime.

The Boer Afrikaner and Southern Rhodesian genocides 
are not discussed never mind given the prominence they ought to be given. Between ten and twenty Afrikaners are murdered every day in South Africa. Over seventy thousand Afrikaners have been murdered since the African National Congress succeeded the National Party. Between ten and fourteen Boer farmers are murdered every week. Over four thousand Boer farmers have been murdered under the ANC. The murders are clearly racially motivated. They are often tortured, beaten and raped as well as butchered. This is shown clearly in Rian Van der Walt's War of the Flea documentary. People have been dragged by trucks over bumpy and rocky roads, people have had their fingers beaten off their hands with lead pipes, people have had their heads bashed in with blunt instruments, babies have been beaten with machetes, people have been raped and decapitated yet there are those who would deny targeting an ethnicity for such treatment is neither racist nor genocidal. Another racist double standard is that not a word is said in condemnation of the seven thousand exclusively Bantu towns in South Africa with no Caucasians, no Asians and no Khoisan, who were the original inhabitants, but Caucasian majorities in Balmoral, Orania and Owendale are condemned as is the significant Caucasian minority in Morgenzon and Caucasian majority areas on the Cape, in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In Zimbabwe there were 296.000 Southern Rhodesians when Ian Douglas Smith was premier. In 1999 there were 120,000 in Zimbabwe but now there are only 100,000 worldwide with only 28,000 left in Zimbabwe. Over twenty Southern Rhodesian farmers were murdered in violent takeovers in a land reform program by the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front. The beneficiaries happened to be associates of the president. Rape gangs have targeted Caucasians in Zimbabwe on the basis of their race.

To understand why the genocide of European Caucasians from Africa is an outrage which should concern us all then imagine a scenario where all non Caucasian minorities in Europe and Caucasian majority nations in the Occident were suffering genocide and ethnic cleansing. There would be a massive international outcry and correctly so. Why is there not an international fury at what is happening to the Boer and the Southern Rhodesian? The absence of condemnation and action against these crimes gives out the immoral signal that racial discrimination against Caucasians is socially acceptable when it is completely unacceptable.

Thursday, 24 November 2016

The significance of Brexit negotiations

Brexit is important as it will influence the forthcoming French election and German election. It has to be stated that Marine Le Pen of the Front National should be viewed favourite to become the next French president. In the presidential polls she has a fifteen point lead at 29%. Alernative fur Deutschland are on 14.5% in German polls and the trajectory of their polls suggests they could control the office of Chancellor and the Bundestag after the German election. They already control 145 provincial legislatures in Germany.

The EU has stated that Britain must be forced into a hard Brexit and that Britain would not get access to the EU market of 440 million people. It is interesting to note that the EU actually believes it is in a position to dictate matters. Britain has 3.5 million workers dependent on EU trade whereas the EU has 5.8 million workers dependent on British trade. The EU sells £288 billion of goods to Britain and Britain sells £227 billion to the EU with over £27.86 billion of that being to Ireland. Ireland sells €13.7bn to Britain so Britain needs Irish trade. Big export markets for Britain in the EU also include Germany ($46.5bn), the Netherlands ($34.2bn) and France ($27bn) but crucially Switzerland ($33.6bn) is outside the EU. Britain has trade deficits with Germany, Netherlands and France as they sell $100bn to Germany, $50.7bn to Netherlands and $41.5bn to France. This means Britain has a trade deficit of £61 billion with the EU overall meaning the EU needs Britain more than Britain need the EU. The EU could point out the £227 billion worth of goods amount to 45% of Britain's exports however Britain would remind the EU that only 28% of Britain's produce is exported. Britain is the party negotiating from the position of strength. Trump said Britain is at the front of the queue in terms of doing a trade deal. This makes Britain's position even stronger as the EU plutocrats know a trade deal with Britain is a top priority for Trump not only for the importance of the American economy but the Trump Organization itself has investments and ownership of British and Irish businesses. It is also known that Trump holds an unfavourable opinion of the Brussels leadership. This is important as Britain sells $51 billion of goods to USA annually and US sells $44.4 billion in the opposite direction. Britain and America share the largest direct investment partnership as Britain invests $282 billion in America and America invests $324 billion in Britain. British tourism contributes $14 billion in the American economy every year and American tourism boosts the British economy with £10 billion annually.

On trade Britain are negotiating access to the EU market for their retailers and manufacturers that sell £227bn to EU every year. It would have to be at a low tariff or tariff free as many are small and medium enterprises that cannot afford to contribute the £5.2bn tariffs Britain would have to pay to the EU every year under the World Trade Organisation's rules. They do not want to pay 4.8% on sales to the EU and many couldn't afford to if they were willing. However Britain has the power on the issue. The EU businesses that sell £288bn to Britain would be hit with a £12.9bn annual tariff bill which could have dire consequences for Eurozone economies. EU car manufacturers would pay £3.9bn of said tariffs each year. So if the EU negotiators were smart they would be wise to avoid a trade war with Britain as the tariffs could destroy European economies and bring about the downfall of the Brussels multinational federal superstate. Yet Jean Claude Juncker wants to force Britain into a hard Brexit without access to EU market which would lead to said trade war despite the fact Brussels will be the loser. This is meant to sent out a message that those who exit will be punished. However it could very well motivate Germans and French to vote for vocal Eurosceptics in Alternative fur Deutschland and Front National. Jim Fitzpatrick on BBC Spotlight outlined that a soft Brexit would benefit the Irish economy. If the EU keeps pursuing a hard Brexit they could lose yet another net contributor in Ireland, and that's prior to factoring in €140bn worth of fish caught in Irish waters, as a loss of vital trade with Britain would push an already Eurosceptic Irish public into an Irish exit.

The wealthy plutocracy are undoubtedly on the side of the EU. Richard Branson, of Virgin Group Ltd, has donated over £25,000 out of £1,000,000 worth of donations to Common Ground which is a Blairite group dedicated to overturning Brexit. Further evidence of the plutocracy's disdain for a democratic result was R (Miller, Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for exiting the EU (2016). An over privileged Guyanese investment banker and hedge fund manager Gina Miller used a questionable interpretation of the Case of Proclamations (1610) legal precedent that Royal Prerogative was bound by parliament to delay Brexit. This means Elizabeth SaxeCoburg Gotha cannot give Royal Ascent and sign an Article 50 statute into law without the Commons (lower legislative house) and Lords (upper house) voting on it. The High Court and Supreme Court used a judgement to stop James Stuart ruling by decree to delay implementation of a democratic referendum. Common Ground also have the terrible idea of forcing a path back into British politics for notorious war criminal Anthony Parsons also known as Tony Blair. Blair himself has ruled out a return. If he did return it would go down like a lead balloon with Labour a party now controlled by Bennites and led by Tony Benn's favourite MP Jeremy Corbyn. Blair had purged Bennites when he was in charge of Labour. Now that the Bennites are in charge the right wing Blairites fear the same treatment they meted out to Bennites hence why they are getting behind Common Ground's crazy proposal to the detriment of working class constituents they are supposed to represent. Labour's right wing Blairites have not even accepted the result of the referendum as Owen Smith argued for a second referendum and Blair himself insists that Brexit can be stopped. Right wing Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron still pushes this undemocratic and Europhilic agenda of the plutocracy.

Immigration control is an issue that needs to be addressed. Only Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn raised public awareness of social dumping, when the lowest paid workers from a country are transferred to a second country to drive down the lowest wages, when he derided the Tories and the EU for yellow carding the posted workers directive which would have outlawed the practice. The Tories and EU were foolish to yellow card this directive prior to the referendum. There have been two spikes in British unemployment since 1992. The first was in 1992 when there was further integration and union within the European Economic Community which renamed itself the European Union. The second was in the late naughties when British workers faced fresh competition with workers from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all countries which had at that time recently joined the EU. A Bank of England report showed that the lowest paid workers decreased by 2% because of the social dumping so corporations could exploit working people. Another aspect of immigration fears is cultural anxiety in relation to Prydain retaining its Brythonic character and Englaland remaining Anglian. An overlooked facet of the Brexit vote was the ethnic and cultural voting blocks. Gaelic and Pictish nations Ireland and Scotland had majorities for Remain whereas the Brythonic nations of England, Wales and Cornwall all had solid majorities for Brexit. It is certain Brythonic nationalism was a factor for the fifteen million English, eight hundred and fifty five thousand Welsh and a hundred and ninety one thousand Cornish Leave voters. If the referendum had been held exclusively in Brythonic nations the winning margin would have been 54% which is two points higher than the actual margin.

Corbyn has told Theresa May he will force an election in 2017 if his Brexit bottom line is not met. He wants access to EU market, worker's rights protected, consumer rights protected, environmental protection and a commitment to match the current level of capital investment. He ought to have demanded a commitment to upholding the Vienna Convention which would have protected the legal rights of EU citizens who entered Britain legally and have not broken any laws. May wants said EU citizens' status on the negotiating table which puts her to the right of Trump ally Nigel Farage who said during the campaign that EU citizens who entered Britain legally cannot be kicked out or deported. This would put British citizens in EU nations at risk. It would be wiser for May to uphold the Vienna Convention, as Britain is a party and signatory to said convention, and negotiate a secure status for British citizens in France as France is neither a party or signatory to the convention. This means France could legally deport British citizens post Brexit vindictively but they would be wise to concede secure status as this would appear to pro Brexit French Eurosceptics as punishment of British neighbours at the behest of EU Commissioners and Councillors. This would help Marine Le Pen and the Front National.

The Express reported that the EU will create its own military force and that the EU expect to levy the charge of the £420,000,000 per annum bill on Britain. If Britain's negotiators are worth anything they will dismiss this preposterous proposition out of hand. In any case the EU already has a military organisation it is called NATO and it has done an untold amount of damage in Europe, Africa and Asia. Another £420m a year on this failing Western imperial expansion and regime change agenda is unnecessary, destabilising and wasteful. Another aspect of immigration fears is linked with the aforementioned as many people want territorial control and border security to deter Wahhabi terrorists, make it more difficult for them to enter Britain and make it easier for security forces and law enforcement to detect Wahhabi militants in the event that they attempt to enter and carry out violence. Wasting more money on a militaristic imperial agenda would motivate Wahhabi militants to attack and some will not be deterred or repelled regardless of how tight and impermeable security infrastructure is. Another legitimate reservation in regard to immigration and security concern of Wahhabi violence was Turkish ascension to the EU. This has been somewhat delayed by the attempted Gulenist coup, the Erdogan crackdown thereafter and stronger Russo Turkish relations since. However a genuine concern of EU citizens is that violent Wahhabi militants active in Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan would be able to attack their nation by travelling to and through Turkey once it became an EU member. Also a few Wahhabi criminals would be difficult to detect and find among 75 million people even with over 20 million security force officers. Motivation for violent Wahhabi zealots to attack Europe would be the EU's contribution to the Zionist military and the illegitimate existence of Medinat Yisrael. The EU's contribution to illegal regime change and destabilising Libya and attempting to do the same in Syria has created fertile breeding ground for crazed far right Wahhabi ideologues. If the EU has no answer to Wahhabi terror as well as Zionist terror then it can expect several exits. The EU arms embargo on Saudi Arabia did not ameliorate Wahhabi terror in Yemen. All previously mentioned terror will create more unfortunate and blameless refugees which will add more strong emotion into what is already a difficult and polarising debate around immigration.

In the run up to the first meeting David Davis had called an MP on a Commons committee Satan when the latter was asking him about Guy Verhofstadt and Verhofstadt remarked it would be “a hell of a conversation”. Manfred Weber the leader of the European People's Party group, the biggest coalition in Brussels EU legislature as a collection of Christians, conservatives and liberals, said to David Davis that free movement is non negotiable. This is delusional and fanciful from Weber as his own Christian Social Union party is not popular in Bavaria as less than a third of Bavarians support them and over two thirds of Germany oppose his party's ally Merkel being reelected. His own party leader Horst Seehofer stated that his own party CSU and Merkel's Christian Democratic Union would suffer heavy electoral defeats. Weber's own CSU party voted to limit refugee numbers to a modest cap of 200,000 people. Also Merkel has lost the support of over 22% of Germans due to a refusal to limit refugee numbers. The CSU are also calling for the abolition of dual citizenship in Germany and ban on the burqa. So this free movement being non negotiable being asserted by Weber is mere fantasy. It would be a gift for AfD if he was to make such an imposition. In any case the EU parliament vetoing a Brexit deal would be self flagellating as it was with the posted workers directive. David Davis said his meeting with Guy Verhofstadt was off to a “good start” and the latter was “a very nice man”. Davis pointed out that a deal was in EU and Britain's interests. Verhofstadt said he wanted a deal done by 2019. He views it as imperative that key essential points are agreed by then and indicated that if a Corbyn Labour government is elected that the EU would view it as a “new and fresh start with new people”.

Britain's Autumn budget has a hole of £122,000,000,000 yet Philip Hammond, who was for Remain, tried to blame the Conservative and Unionist Party's economic incompetence on the democratic result of the Brexit referendum. According to the twisted logic of Hammond it was not Gideon Osborne creating more state debt than all previous Labour governments combined, it wasn't Osborne creating a record structural deficit which is state debt as a percentage of gross domestic product on at least three occasions, it wasn't Osborne borrowing more (£430.72bn) in three years than New Labour did (£429.975bn) in thirteen years, it was not that Osborne inherited a state debt of £960bn and left a state debt of over £1.6 trillion that left a £122bn hole in the budget and that Brexit is more responsible for budgetary holes of £122bn than a state debt of over £1.78 trillion that grows by over £5,170 every second. Hammond would be wise not to link his and his party's utter incompetence with the democratic wishes of the British people.

If May does not get a deal that ensures access to EU market, a deal that controls immigration, a deal that restores full legislative power to Commons and Lords, a deal that protects workers, consumers, the environment and capital investment then a fresh start with new people presiding over Brexit will emerge in a Corbyn led Bennite Labour government with people who have been itching for Brexit since the early 1970's and who will know how to do it. If those in the EU, like Manfred Weber, and Remainers who intend to delay Brexit in hope of overturning it proceed with their plan at their peril. Do they really want to anger and push fifteen million English, a million Scots, nine hundred and forty four thousand Irish (including the three hundred and fifty thousand who voted leave), eight hundred and fifty five thousand Welsh and a hundred and ninety one thousand Cornish Eurosceptics too far? It is one thing for the EU and Europhiles to ignore the Irish vote on Lisbon and enrage six hundred thousand Irish Eurosceptics but it is another thing entirely to attempt the same with eighteen million apoplectic Western Europeans. Such an endeavour and undertaking would be doomed to abysmal failure which only serves to re-emphasise the significance of securing the right deal for all parties involved. The Remainers and Europhiles have to accept the result. There is no other choice for them. Eurosceptics had to accept it when 67% of British voters voted Remain in 1975 and those who wanted alternative voting reform had to concede that 68% of British voters wanted to retain first past the post in 2011. They are the only two previous examples of direct democracy in British history and it would set a dangerous precedent if the third was ignored. The EU does not need to show more disdain for democracy than it did in Denmark in 1992, in Ireland in 2001 and 2008, in Greece in 2015 or in Netherlands in April. If they try to ignore Brexit it will only hasten their own inevitable downfall.  

Sunday, 20 November 2016

US Domestic Policy Challenges

After eight years of a Democratic president there will now be at least four years of a Republican presidency. Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate despite losing over six seats and two seats respectively. That gives the party majorities of forty six in the house and at least four in the senate. These elections will lead to a change of not only foreign policy but significant changes to domestic policies.

On economic trade policy Trump's election has killed the despised Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. This was similar to Brexit killing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade agreement. A March poll showed 67% of Americans were against TPP and a September Politico Harvard poll showed eighty five percent of Republicans and fifty four percent of Democrats believing it would cost America jobs. The only people in Congress who would support it are twenty eight Democratic representatives and thirteen Democratic senators which means a minority of the minority party in the legislature were prepared, along with the president, to go against their party
and their electoral base to pursue a detrimental corporatist policy. Another positive economic policy is Trump's promise to invest over $600,000,000,000 in America's grade D infrastructure which will not only create much needed employment but the imperative upgrade that is desperately needed,

In terms of the executive branch and it's functioning the Intercept reported that Trump will take over the presidency with the most expansive and most unchecked power in history. This means the presidency and executive branch is more powerful now than during the presidencies of Nixon, George W Bush and Obama. This has increased the scope of the government in relation to internal crackdown on citizens which the violent anti Trump protesters ought to consider for the sake of safety and security alone especially in the context of the law and order president elect. These powers gives Trump control of an unaccountable drone program. This represents potential risks and pitfalls Two American civilians had been killed in covert operations under Obama along with three American citizens who were Wahhabi terrorists. Worryingly Trump is putting Jose Rodriguez in charge of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rodriguez oversaw the creation of the torture program under George W Bush.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was surprised at the vast scope of responsibilities and duties of the presidency and that Obama would have more transitional meetings with his successor due to Trump's inexperience with the government's executive branch. This is not the first time governmental practices have been changed to accommodate a new president as presidential briefings were two pages shorter under Bush junior as he was a multi modality learner meaning he processed information better in the form of questions and answers.

Trump promised to expand Medicaid. Medicaid has to be expanded to increase American people's access to healthcare. This is not disputed and there is broad agreement on this across the political spectrum. The Wall Street Journal reported that fifty six percent of Republicans were in favour of expanding Medicaid. Utah Policy showed that eighty nine percent of Democrats favour Medicaid expansion and PPACA was Obama's policy and statutory implementation of Medicaid expansion. Trump promised to increase Medicaid block grants to states in the federal budget. Trump has stated he will either repeal and replace PPACA or amend it. On Columbia Broadcasting Service's 60 Minutes interview he stated people with pre existing conditions would be covered under a new or amended healthcare policy. Getting Medicaid expansion correct is crucial to the Trump presidency. Eleven million and four hundred thousand Americans are afraid of losing their health insurance coverage that they gained from PPACA. 30,503,000 Americans are still uninsured. 7,900,000 of those could potentially be insured by 2022. Forty million Americans are depending on Trump's policy for their healthcare. This is what happens in countries without single payer nationalised healthcare systems. The aforementioned would bring down the costs of Medicaid and Medicare as America constantly spending twice the amount Canada does on healthcare shows. Thom Hartmann asked if it was possible for Trump to save Medicare on Russia Today's Big Picture.

In the 60 Minutes interview Trump took the opportunity to strongly condemn violent hate crimes and urged for hate crimes to cease. Trump was endorsed by Ku Klux Klan branches and self admitted overt white supremacists so for the sake of American race relations it was important for Trump to show strong leadership on the recent violence. It was also important for the paleoconservative and alternative right favoured president elect as many working class people of ethnic minorities form a significant section of his electoral base. The optics of a law and order candidate not being strong on violence would be received negatively by the American public.

Trump also promised not to cut Social Security. The Intercept reported that Mike Corby of USA Next, previously of Reagan and Bush junior's administrations, and Dorcas Hardy are on Trump's transitional team regarding entitlements. This is a mistake by Trump as both of the aforementioned are hostile to Social Security as a government program and both want to privatise and cut Social Security. Paul Ryan is already making public statements about entitlement reform. If Trump privatises Social Security or even worse cuts it, it will be as big a mistake as Obama made offering to cut Social Security which the Republicans in Congress at the time rejected. It would be an unnecessary blunder as Americans overwhelmingly support Social Security including eighty seven percent of Democrats and seventy two percent of Republicans. Mike Huckabee, a Christian conservative Republican from Bill Clinton's home town of Hope in Arkansas, strongly supported Trump and is opposed to cutting Social Security is a more optimistic sign as it indicates strong Republican opposition to cutting Social Security among the party's base. It is imperative that Trump opposes Paul Ryan's libertarian economics inspired by the late Ayn Rand.

Trump has confirmed he will keep his campaign promise of overturning Roe verses Wade 1973 a ruling that led to sixty million babies dying violent deaths. This is an optimistic omen for the pro life movement. Trump stated that the issue of abortion would go back to the states in terms of policy. This could be an improvement from a pro life perspective as sixty percent of Republicans are pro life. The GOP control 33 state and territory executives, they have fifty seven percent of state senatorial seats and fifty six percent of state house seats so Republican state control should bring significant gain to pro life advocates. This is a welcome change from Obama's pro abortion extreme zealotry.

Trump will continue current strong immigration deportation policies and enforce stronger border security policies. There will stronger immigration and customs policies as Trump was endorsed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Obama deported two million illegal immigrants and criminal including a record 438,421 deported in 2013. This will undoubtedly continue. Trump aims to deport between two million and three million violent criminals who illegally entered America in the first three months of his presidency. Securing the southern border involves two thousand miles of combinations of a fence, a wall, two fences and two walls in different places along with increased border patrols by ICE. This is a big promise as only six hundred and seventy miles of the southern border is currently fenced however both president elect Trump and leading Congressional Republicans have reaffirmed their intention of securing the southern border and implementing policies in pursuit of that goal. Strong vetting procedures, which involve over twenty stages in the process, of immigrants will continue and in Trump's extreme vetting policy immigrants will be vetted regarding their views on religious tolerance, gender equality and same sex couples to detect Wahhabi ideology for security purposes. This policy was moderated from a ban on foreign Muslims entering America articulated in the Republican primaries.

Trump has named Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist and Senior Counsellor and he has also named Reince Preibus as Chief Aide in his administration. The purpose of Bannon's appointment is to reward Bannon's loyalty on the campaign and to give credit for Bannon and Conway's victorious electoral strategy. Bannon has drawn criticism and several critics condemn him for white nationalist and anti Semitic views espoused in his time at Breitbart News even though that publication has denied that it promotes such views. Bannon's ex wife claimed under sworn testimony that Bannon had expressed concern that his daughters were being educated alongside students of the Jewish faith and she also said he disliked Jews. It should be noted that Bannon, like the president elect, supports the Zionist state of Medinat Yisrael. The aim with Preibus's role is to unite the Republican Party including establishment Republicans especially those of the neoconservative ideological persuasion. Bannon and Preibus will in effect serve as Trump's Chiefs of Staff.

On fiscal policy Trump will pursue Reagan style trickle down supply side economics. Trump has indicated his intention to implement similar fiscal policies to Bush junior's Tax the Rich Tax Cuts program which was designed to generate revenue with tax cuts acting as a stimulus to incentivise spending. While it did generate what were the highest US tax receipts in 2007 Bush's expenditure had already wasted it with profligacy. Trump wants to disincentivise corporate inversions by reducing the corporate income tax rate to fifteen percent. The Republican controlled Congress had previously blocked Obama's attempt to outlaw corporate inversions in statute. This is unlikely to generate enough spending and revenue for Trump being able to implement all the policies he has articulated however it has already convinced the Ford motor company to transfer an increasing number of jobs from Mexico to Ohio in order to manufacture trucks and lorries. Trump had aggressively criticised Ford for creating 3,800 positions in Chihuahua, the town where the small dog breed is from, and Guanajuato instead of towns in the rust belt of America. Canada and Mexico have indicated their willingness to renegotiate NAFTA since Trump's election. Time and Fortune have reported that Trump's economic policy would add $5,300,000,000,000 to the US national debt and this would bring the national debt to between $25 trillion and $26 trillion. Neither Trump nor other Republicans have stated or laid out how they would service said debt. They could increase the minimum wage a policy supported by over 80% Democrats (APGfK poll), 53% Republicans (Hart Research poll) and 80% of American businesses according to the Chamber of Commerce poll. This would stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending with more disposable income and generating public revenue through income tax and business tax. For consumer spending and public revenue to be maximised in this fashion the minimum wage would have to be chained to inflation. On student debt Trump said there would income based repayments amounting to 12.5% of postgraduates incomes. He wants to fund forgiveness of loans by lowering federal spending in cuts to the Department of Education. Trump's policy is to forgive student loan debts after fifteen years of repayments. Trump wants tuition fees cut by making cuts and savings in educational administration. If universities do not spend endowment money on keeping tuition fees low they will lose federal tax breaks under Trump's plan. Trump had accused establishment politicians of not giving “a damn about education” during his campaign. Trump indicated that he wants to repeal Common Core and give responsibility for setting educational standards to state governments. Trump favours charter schools and academies as well.

On the culture war issue of same sex relationships Trump has stated that the Supreme Court has already settled the issue. This is due to Lavender Bund Log Cabin Republicans support for Trump and he is also considering how not to alienate the former while not offending his enthusiastic support among Evangelical Christians on the religious right of the Republican Party. In this regard Trump is socially liberal especially in comparison to past Republican presidential candidates and other conservatives. On the issue of the Supreme Court Trump will get to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice as Republicans in Congress rejected Obama's proposal of justice Merrick Garland. Trump could appoint up to four supreme justices depending on retirement and death given that there are three ageing supreme justices in Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer. It could be five if you consider that supreme justice Thomas is approaching his seventh decade. Trump will shape the Supreme Courts for decades to come. The challenge for Trump in relation to the Supreme Court is to appoint pro life justices who are also in favour of same sex relationships. He needs pro life justices to satisfy pro life peoples and the majority of his party while not disenfranchising the gay Republicans who form a part of his voter base. Huckabee strongly supported Trump despite being staunchly opposed to same sex relationships. Finding justices who hold both of the aforementioned political positions are key to Trump's handling of the independent judiciary. It is important for Trump's image as the law and order candidate that he succeeds in his judicial handling.

As the law and order president Trump will have to significantly reduce the murder rates from the 14,671+ murders this year and the 15,696 murders last year on the streets of America to keep his promise of increased security for the urban populations which include working class Caucasians and working class African Americans. Trump increased the Republican vote among both groups. Almost two thirds of the former voted Trump and the latter group is particularly crucial to Trump's future electoral prospects as he increased the Republican vote by seven percent among African Americans. Working class Hispanics live in urban areas affected by high rates of violent crime and Trump increased the Republican vote among Hispanics by eight percent as almost a third of Hispanics cast their ballots for the law and order candidate. On Homeland Security it will be interesting to see how Joe Arpaio and David Clarke deal with the threat of domestic terrorism. Joe Arpaio has expressed major concern with tough rhetoric on violent criminals infiltrating the southern border. David Clarke has had similarly strong sentiments in condemnation of attacks on American police departments and has been one of the most aggressive defenders of American police departments especially when they are heavily criticised in the mainstream media. Clarke outlined a five step riot protocol which was declare state of emergency, impose curfew, mobilising National Guard (military reserves), authorise non lethal force and the final step being the use of tear gas. It is likely that Rudy Guilliani will oversee nationwide stop and search as well as increased criminal profiling, including on the basis of ethnicity and race, by police departments across America. This is controversial as stop and search power enforcement has a strong positive correlation with declining crime rates and declining violent crime rates but thousands of innocent Americans are subjected to arbitrary searches.

In terms of constitutional reform Trump has signalled his intentions to introduce and pass an amendment to impose term limits on congressional representatives and senators as an anti corruption measure to disincentivise public representatives from becoming career politicians. He referred to this policy as “Draining the swamp”. In this analogy Washington DC is the swamp full of career politicians and term limits will drain the swamp of toxic career politicians.

Both Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders have said Trump is not an ideologue. This is positive and it is true that Trump showed strategic pragmatism during his campaign and many people hope he is similarly pragmatic in office. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren said they would work with Trump and that they would hold him accountable for the promises he made to the working class people of America. They must do this primarily for the people of the country and secondarily for the future of the Democratic Party if they wish for it to continue. They ought to as the party served as the working class people's vehicle for change. However in darker times it served as something else entirely. It currently serves as the political arm of Wall Street corporations. This must change.

Trump needs to be pragmatic, effective and energetic in his new roles as chief of state and head of government in America. Despite the deep divisions, Business Insider suggested that the US had eleven cultural nations in its federation, the violence and instability Trump needs to provide stability and security for all Americans to remedy said problems if Republican style civic nationalism is to succeed in America for the benefit of all of it's people. For the sake of the people of America Trump needs to succeed despite the difficulties he will undoubtedly face.

Failure of US Foreign Policy

According to the Global Policy Forum the United States of America carried out 189 military interventions between 1798 and 2005. Including the seven military interventions under Barack Obama this amounts to a hundred and ninety six military interventions by a nation state that is merely twenty four decades old. Counter Currents reported that the United States of America has invaded seventy countries since it declared its independence on 4th July 1776. Both Counter Currents and Global Research have stated that American military interventions have directly caused the deaths of between twenty million and thirty million people since the second world war. The Middle East Eye drew attention to the four million casualties of the Islamic faith since Desert Storm. The disastrous aggressive foreign policy doesn't just harm and hurt people from nations outside America. The Public Broadcasting System showed that 674,798 of the total 1.1 million American soldiers killed have lost their lives in conflicts, due to thoughtless interventions, since the first world war. In many cases neoconservative military interventions cause deteriorations in scenarios that were already ripe for catastrophic ethnic violence. This is easily provable and can be demonstrated with analysis of interventions by individual case study.

Desert Storm killed 38,664 Iraqis and three hundred Americans in a month. “Containment” of Iraq by America id est economic sanctions and intensive bombing murdered over 2 million people in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Liberation led to the deaths of over 1.7 million Iraqis, killed five thousand Americans and wounded thirty three thousand. Between 2003 and 2005 seven hundred thousand Assyrians and Iraqi Christians were forced to flee to Syria due to the Neocon military assault lighting an ethnoreligious tinder box. A hundred thousand Arab refugees were forced out of southern Kurdistan. Other victims of Kurdification were Assyrian Christians and Turkmen. Sunni Arabs forced seventy thousand Kurds out of west Mosul. Sunnis fled Basra. Shiites were forced from Samarra and Baquva. American military interventions in Iraq created an environment were al Qaeda's Iraqi branch and it's successor D'aesh could thrive and succeed. The Pentagon's Neocon policy of deBa'athification and purging the state and government of Sunnis provided an ample amount of recruits who were armed for the Wahhabi terrorists. Powell's citing of al Zarqawi's gang in the former's speech at the UN gave the predecessors of ISIS credibility in the eyes of Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. Retaliatory violence from Moqtada al Sadr and Jaish al Mahdi made Sunni Shiite relations worse. To provide context the ethnic map of Iraq is displayed below. This map is from the American government of all sources. Yet the governments of America, Britain, Australia and Poland looked at that, knowing the potential for racial and sectarian violence as well as Wahhabi terror, and in their absolute ideological arrogance thought they could introduce massive scale military violence to the situation without problems and detrimental consequences to make money off a Saudi oil cartel and recreating Pinochet's Chile by privatising and liberalising Iraq's economy with no protectionism whatsoever.
It is not only in west Asia that America strengthens the position of Wahhabi and Zionist terrorists. America's participation in the Yugoslav wars is nothing short of shameful. In Operation Deliberate Force, subtle name(!), America dropped 1,026, 708 of them laser guided, bombs on 338 targets in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was all done within a fortnight and killed fifty four Yugoslavs. Operation Deliberate Force was the first time the Luftwaffe had seen action since its action in the second world war for the Third Reich. This military operation emboldened the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was Salman's “charity” for funnelling money to al Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This led to the Mostar car bombing of Croatian Christians. Fortunately there were no deaths but twenty nine serious injuries. It also allowed EU expansion into Yugoslavia and NATO encroachment towards Russia in recent decades. In Deliberate Force America was militarily supported by Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Of course this was all too late for the 2,500+ Bosnians killed in the second Sebrinica massacre and far too late for the 2,383 Serbs that died during the first Sebrinica massacre, not that America cared as Serbs were loyal to Yugoslavia which America considered its enemy, so humanitarianism as a pretentious pretext is clearly disingenuous as it is in every regime change case. Over sixty two thousand Bosnians, over twenty five thousand Serbs and eight thousand Croats lost their lives during the Bosnian War. Two million and seven hundred thousand Yugoslavs were ethnically cleansed in Bosnia. It is clear Bosnians forced Serbs out of Bonsanski Petrovoc, Kljuc, Modrica, Ilijas, Kresevo Breza, Visoko, Lopare, Teocak, Ugljevik, Gorazde, Pale Praca, Trnovo and Konjic. Croats ethnically cleansed Serbs from Bihac, Drvar, Bosanko Grahavo, Glamoc, Kupres, Jajce, Prozor and Mostar. The Serbs forced Bosnians and Croats out of an area from Novi Grad, Ribnik and Banja Luka in the west to Brcko in the east which constituted the Srpska Yugolav republic. The Serbs also ethnically cleansed Bosnians from Zvarnik to Foca in the east. Croats forced Bosnians out of Jajce, Novi Travnik, Vitez, Busovaca, Kiseljak and Kresevo. Bosnians cleansed Croats from a centralised territory from Gradacac, Gracinica, Srebinik, Celic, Teocak, Tuzla and east Doboj in the north to Prozor, Jablanica and Konjic in the south. This shows that American military involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina made an ethnically tense heterogeneity more dangerous like it did in Lebanon (under Ronald Reagan), Iraq, Libya and Syria. The context for Bosnia and Herzegovina is set below comparing 1991 ethnic map with 1998. The key for the maps is Serbians are red, Croatians are blue and Bosnians are green.
America was not finished with Yugoslavia, with the context for this paragraph and the last set with the map above, under Bill Clinton. Noble Anvil and Allied Force was barbaric and brutal unjustified attack on Yugoslavia that was illegal under international law. The atrocious deaths of 10,161 Kosovans, 5,259 Serbs, 27 Roma people, 10 Ashkhali people, 9 Montenegrins, 4 Bosnians, 4 Egyptians, 3 Chinese journalists and seven other Yugoslavia people in the Kosovo War did not justify the American military coalition with Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal and Spain laying siege to Yugoslavia in a fifteen month onslaught of aerial bombing. The rationale was that it would help the Kosovans yet the bombing killed three hundred innocent civilians in Kosovo. The bombing also killed 6,652 Serbians. As with Bosnia and Herzegovina American military intervention exacerbated ethnic violence. Additional perspective is further evidence by the 1991 Kosovo ethnic map alongside the 2005 Kosovo ethnic map. In both maps Serbians are red and Albanians are green.
America has a poor record militarily intervening in Afghanistan since Jimmy Carter's disastrous Operation Cyclone in 1979, prior to Soviet intervention on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, which led directly to the creation of al Qaeda and the Taliban. This was not only to counter Soviet influence from the north but to diminish Iranian influence from the west. Both of the aforementioned objectives were aims of Carter and Reagan. Carter did not want Ayatollah Khomeini gaining further popularity and power in the wake of having overthrown Shah Mohammed Khan of the Pahlavi dynasty. Supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda against the Soviet Union had consequences. Over two million Afghans died in a decade long war. This led to a three year civil war which killed over twenty five thousand Afghans. Over six thousand more Afghans died in the four year civil war that followed which led to the Taliban takeover and establishing its Wahhabi emirate. There was half a decade of ethnic violence against Hazara, Ismaili, Kyrgyz, Tajiks, Turkmen and Uzbeks under the Taliban emirate. American militarily intervening once again in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom led to the deaths of fifty thousand Afghans and two and a half thousand Americans while wounding twenty thousand in a thirteen year long war lasting longer than Johnson, Nixon and Ford's catastrophes in Vietnam which killed 1.8 million Vietnamese and sixty thousand Americans. Another fifteen thousand Afghans have been killed in another war in the last two years alone and another American military intervention by Obama has cost thirty Americans their lives. Neither D'aesh nor al Qaeda and the Taliban have been deterred even after losing over sixteen thousand combatants. In fact they are engaged in not only anti Afghan government insurgency but internecine fratricide as there have been splits among Wahhabi terrorists since Mullah Mohammed Omar was killed. To provide a panoramic picture of the evidence we should look at the ethnic map of Afghanistan. The key is light blue for Pashtun, red for Baloch, yellow for Tajiks, green for Turkmen, brown for Uzbeks, pink for Hazara, purple for Nuristanis, turquoise for Ismaili and orange for Kyrgyz people. To understand the current conflict this must be viewed alongside the territorial map in the current phase of the military conflict. The key is pink for Afghan government, white for al Qaeda and the Tablian and dark grey for D'aesh.
Obama supported militarily intervening in Syria by proximity combatants which led to over 470,000 people being killed and over 11,000,000 (United Nationas High Commissioner for Refugees July 2015) being forced from their homes. His administration has spent over $70,000,000,000 in support of Al Qaeda/ Jabhat al Nusra/ Jabhat Fateh al Sham, ISIS, Jaish Khalid Ibn al-Walid, Ahrar ash Sham, the Islamic Front, Jaysh al-Islam, Muhajirin wa-Ansar Alliance, Jabhat Ansa al-Din, Jaysh al-Nasr, Jaish al-Izzah, Abu Amara Brigades, Thuwar al-Sham Battalion, Alotfecat Brigades, Firqat ak Amiyn al Uwlaa Halab, Martyr Badr Yasturun Brigade, Army of Conquerors, Knights of Glory Brigade, al Moutasem Brigade, Liwa Ahfad Saladin, Liwa Dhi Qar, Army of Mujahedeen, Fastaqim Kama Umirt, Jaysh Usud al-Sharqiya, Jaysh al-Tawheed, Al-Jabha al-Suriyya lil-Tahrir, Ahmad al-Abdo Martyrs Brigades and Battalions, al-Rahman Legion, Al-Habib al-Mustafa Brigade, Liwa Al-Adiya, Jaysh al-Janoob, Alwiyat al-Jonu, Liwa Ahrar Souriya, Al-Fawj al-Awal, Al-Safwa Islamic Battalions, Jaish al-Tahrir and other Wahhabi gangs in this genocidal farce. The aforementioned Wahhabi terrorists target Sunnis, Alawis, Shia, Yazidis, Kurds and Turk-men that they despise but they are also targeting Levantine Christians in a genocide of the people of the Christian faith all across their historic homeland of west Asia. Aramaic speakers are killed by the murderous terrorists. The people who speak Yesu of Nazareth's language are being killed. Syria has been a disaster. Five years of Wahhabist warfare and genocide has not removed Assad, al Ba'ath or the National Progressive Front Coalition and it not has not militarily defeated the Syrian Arab Army which are all facts pointed out by Al Masdar and Global Research. This ought to have been a logical outcome and projection. Lebanon were never going to allow a March 14th government to come to power to their east. This explains why Hezbollah were compelled to act militarily as Al Monitor pointed out. According to Al Monitor Iran were never going to make it easy for Saudi, Qatari, Emirate, Jordanian, Bahraini and Kuwaiti allied groups to take control of Syria. Iran has a legitimate security interest as destabilising Syria destabilises Kurdish provinces including Kurdistan province south of West Azerbaijan province. Iraq and Kurdistan have an interest in stable Dohuk and Ninevah provinces. Iraq has an interest in a stable Anbar province. Iran, Iraq and Syria have a collective interest in a stable Kurdistan. Turkey does not have this interest as it has been at war with Kurdistan since 1978. Turkey wants to win the war against Kurdistan, to regain the influence it had in the Ottoman era and it wants it's Wahhabist allies controlling Syria when Turkey joins the EU. Medinat Yisrael wants to keep al Jawlan hence they have directly assisted Wahhabists in al Jawlan. Syria and Lebanon have a legitimate security interest in keeping Wahhabists and Medinat Yisrael out of al Jawlan. It goes without saying that Neoconservative hubris repeated the same cocky insanity of adding massive military violence to a heterogeneity then expecting different results. They want to expand the oil market as well as the arms market for American companies despite the fact human consequences will damage any serious geopolitical, diplomatic or trade strategy. Americans do not need to be reminded of the blow back in incidents such as San Bernadino and Orlando. The security threat of Wahhabi terror is a legitimate concern of those who support Donald Trump who despite tough rhetoric has a pragmatic articulated strategy and foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's Neoconservatism, like Obama, Bush and her husband, has not helped matters and even drove people to tough rhetoric and pragmatism. This had been seen in the debate when Trump declared, “Syria is fighting ISIS, Iran is fighting ISIS and Russia is fighting ISIS!” While Fox News host Chris Wallace, also a card carrying Democrat, “fact checked” (sic) Trump and alleged he was lying. This was shameful propaganda from a journalist who had previously upheld a high standard. The partisan politicking on foreign policy and aggressive militaristic Neoconservatism has led to the situation we see in Syria. Sunni Arabs are blue, Kurds are yellow, Alawires are green, Shiites are light green, Christians are red and Druze are purple. War map Syria is red, Kurds are yellow, al Qaeda are green and ISIS are black.
Viktor Yanukovych was removed by Nazists in Ukraine which was not only the EU but Obama's administration also. John McCain, Obama's opponent in 2008 who supports the same Neoconservative agenda, was pictured with the Nazists in Maidan, a square in the Ukrainian capital city Kyiv. John McCain was also pictured with ISIS leaders in Syria as part of the proxy war against Syria. Far right nationalists, Fascists, Nazists and violent conservatives all supported the US and EU backed coup in Ukraine. Right Sector, Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People's Self-Defence, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, the all Ukrainian Union Fatherland, all Ukrainian Union Freedom and the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (the acronym of which spells the Ukrainian idiom for “punch”) all supported the US and EU coup. All of those parties range from the right to the far right. Fatherland, Right Sector and Azov Battalion affiliates have all openly called for Russian genocide. In addition the Nazist junta began persecuting and murdering Ashkenazim Jews and attacking synagogues in Ukraine. This had led to a war fought mainly in the east of Ukraine in the predominantly Russian Lugansk and Donetsk provinces. Ten thousand have died, twenty thousand have been wounded and over two million Ukrainians have fled their homes. Did it serve American interests? The Netherlands voted against the European Union on the matter of Ukraine, Brexit has happened and there is fresh tensions between Moldova, US/EU ally, and Transnistria, Russian ally bordering Ukraine, so it could be argued that it does not. In the ethnic map Ukrainians are yellow and Russians are blue while in the Donbass war map the Russians are red.
It is not only Asia and Europe that has suffered from foreign policy incompetence in the Pentagon and State Department in America as Africa has suffered. In intervening in Libya America armed Al Qaeda, D'aesh and Ansar al Sharia along with British and French NATO forces to overthrow Gaddafi and the Jamahiriya. Muammar Gaddafi had an approval rating of 85% when he was overthrown. Bear in mind Obama's approval peaked at 68%. There was free energy for all citizens of the Libyan Jamahiriya. All banks were nationalised and usury was illegal. Gaddafi housed everyone in Libya. Newly wedded couples received $50,000 from the Jamahiriya when they married. Healthcare was nationalised and free to access for all. The Libyan Jamahiriya paid for students to study at college and university level at home and abroad. Gaddafi trebled the literacy rate in Libya. Farming and agriculture were nationalised with Libyan people getting land, houses, seeds and livestock to farm from the Jamahiriya. If Libyans bought a car the government paid for half. Petroleum was $0.14 per litre. There was no state debt. Oil revenues were deposited into citizens' bank accounts as in Norway. Every time a child was born in Libya the mother got $5,000 from the state. Forty loaves of bread cost $0.15 and a quarter of all Libyans were post graduates. Global Research highlighted that Gaddafi also irrigated the desert country with a man made river transporting 2,000,000 cubic metres of water across Libya. Libyans had the highest average wage and highest purchasing power in Africa. It was Africa's richest country yet the first African American president of America thought it would be a great idea to destroy it. Wikileaks has revealed that Obama and Secretary Clinton both knew that their strategy of arming al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, D'aesh and Wahhabists in Libya would result in black genocide in Libya yet they both vigorously pursued that strategy anyway with callousness. The fact is that Obama militarily intervened in Libya without congressional oversight which is an impeachable offence under America's War Powers Act. That war led to the deaths of over fifteen thousand Libyans. The current war in Libya has killed five thousand Libyans which was a direct consequence of overthrowing Gaddafi who had the support of over two thousand Libyan tribes in a heterogeneous nation. In the maps below Arabs and Berbers are gold, Tuareg are orange and Toubou are green on the ethnic map. On the war map National Accord executive is green, Tobruk is red, Tuareg is yellow, local tribes are blue and Wahhabi terrorists are white.
In Yemen Obama has plainly sided with Saudi Arabia, Medinat Yisrael, al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia and D'aesh in a war against the people of Yemen. In a sectarian war America has sided with Wahhabi terrorists yet again. They learned nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria. Over ten thousand people have died in Yemen while over three million have been forced from their homes. Shamefully America is supported by China, Britain, France, Gulf Council, Jordan ,Morocco, Senegal and Sudan in this barbaric endeavour. Yet again America has intervened in a bubbling ethnic conflict, which it helped to ferment in the post Soviet era, and has caused a serious deterioration to an already violent and unstable situation. Obama and Bush junior did not help by carrying out over a hundred twenty drone strikes killing over seven hundred Yemeni people.

In the maps above from left to right Northern Yemeni are orange, Southern Yemeni are green, Tihamis are red, Soqotris are purple, Mahris are yellow and Yemeni people in Saudi Arabia are pink. In the war map Revolutionary Committee, Ansar Allah, Houthis are green, the Hadi forces are red and Wahhabi terrorists are white. In the religious map Shiites are black and Sunnis are orange.

War in Pakistan has killed over sixty five thousand people. Twenty thousand were Pakistani civilians. Bush and Obama's drone strikes have killed over nine hundred and sixty five civilians. The Pakistani military has killed over thirty three thousand Wahhabi terrorists and Wahhabi terrorists have killed seven thousand Pakistani military personnel. Tehrik I Taliban, al Qaeda, Lashkar e Jhangvi. Lashkar e Islam, Jamaat ul Ahrar, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi and the Turkistan Islamic party constitute an alliance engaged in internecine violence with the ISIS Khorasan unit, Jundallah and Tehreek e Khilafat form the opposing coalition in addition the aforementioned groups in both coalitions are all Wahhabi groups operating in Pakistan. Despite the fact over three million Pakistanis have been displaced the forty percent drop in violence between 2011 and 2013 was presented as success. The victims of the sixty percent of violence did not view it as success. The violent situation has bolstered support for Sindhi and Baluchistan liberation movements. Again American violence has been an unwelcome addition to a volatile ethnic tinder box costing America nine of its military personnel their lives. This has been in tandem with the disaster in Afghanistan. The one positive is that Navy Seals took out Usama Bin Laden in Pakistan.
American drone strikes and covert military operations have killed over five hundred and seventy eight people in Somalia with over fifty seven of them being civilian casualties. America does not have a sterling military record in Somalia. Prior to Operation Iraqi Liberation, Black Hawk Down was the greatest mobilisation of American troops since the Vietnam War. Like the other aforementioned conflicts Black Hawk Down was a disaster and one of the darkest days in American military history. In the Battle of Mogadishu America lost eighteen soldiers while killing three hundred and fifty Somalian militants. There are those who assert five hundred Somalian militants were killed. Operation Restore Hope led to the deaths of fifty three Americans in the 1992 Somalian War. The unsettled outcome led to the 2006 to 2009 civil war in which sixteen thousand Somalian civilians, nine hundred Somalian military personnel and 2,773 Ethiopian military personnel were killed. Eight thousand Wahhabi terrorists were killed in that war. The unsettled outcome has led to the current civil war which is ongoing. The current war has killed over ten thousand Somalian civilians, over seven hundred in the Somalian military and has led to the deaths of another eight thousand Wahhabi terrorists. It has also displaced over a million and a half Somalians. In the war territory map Somalian government is red, Somaliland government is yellow, Khatumo state is green and Wahhabi terrorist alliance of al Shabaab, al Qaeda and ISIS is black.
To conclude America cannot afford to keep making these mistakes. A state that is in twenty two trillion dollars of debt cannot keep spending over $1.7 trillion on ill thought out wars like they did in Iraq with Operation Iraqi Liberation. American cannot afford to keep spending over seventy billion on proxies like it did with Wahhabi terrorists in Syria. Establishment politicians in America keep proposing the unpopular ideas that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security all must be cut to balance American federal budgets. This is simply not true as the chart of discretionary spending in America since 1976 shows. The fact is that if the majority of unnecessary discretionary military spending was cut all three aforementioned programs could be funded for decades to come. To summarise American people cannot afford to let their imperial government to continue wasting their money on wars against people who did nothing to deserve such gratuitous violence.

EU Disastrous Hawkish Dovetailing of US Foreign Policy

The EU's foreign policy has been a disaster. This is detrimental to the people of Europe and the rest of the world. The people of Europe did not want or need the EU to remove the Libyan Jamahiriya government, the elected Ukrainian government and they certainly do not want or need the elected government of Syria to be removed. In fact the contrary is true. If Wahhabi terrorists can be taken out it provides not only more security and stability for nations on the Levant but more stability and security for the nations of Europe as well given their proximity to west Asia and north Africa. The Syrian military has taken out over 155,263 Wahhabi terrorists. These obvious facts seem to have escaped the commission and councils in Brussels.

In Libya Britain alone spent over
£1,210,023,840 on removing the legitimate government. This exceeded even America's spending of $1,100,000,000 on Libya. All other EU nations directly involved in the NATO operations spent a combined total of €1,845,796,025. Italy's expenditure was €700,000,000 and France also weighed in heavily with €450,000,000. There were forty nine air raids carrying out strikes every day for seven and a half months totalling 10,920 raids and strikes once the operations had finished. In Libya both the EU and Saudi Arabia supported NATO regime change against Muammar Gaddafi's leadership of the Jamahiriya. This included militarily supporting the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group/ Libyan Islamic Movement/ al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia and Libyan affiliates of D'aesh. Human Rights Investigations, the Anti Media, the New American, the American Thinker and Libyan War The Truth all reported the violent ethnic cleansing and genocide of dark complexioned Libyans that ensued during the violent regime change. Wikileaks showed that Obama and Clinton knew this when they armed the Wahhabi groups. It stands to reason that Barroso, Cameron, Hollande, Merkel and Van Rompuy knew this as they were militarily cooperating with the United States on the operations in Libya. This has led to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia and D'aesh being well established as Wahhabi organisations in Libya.

Again we must look at the disaster unfolding in Ukraine. The EU pushed east since the fall of the Berlin wall, which was a tragedy for Germany, and NATO has mirrored this militarily in cohesion with it's expression of political organisation which the EU is for all intents and purposes. This culminated in provoking Putin by supporting Maidan protests in Kyiv seeking to overthrow the elected government which was a proximal ally of the Russian Federation. Deceptively the Ukrainian government and Russia were led into negotiations by the EU, US and Ukrainian Europhiles believing the latter had any intention of respecting the agreed outcome. The protesters, who had been violent from the beginning, became increasingly violent and aggressive killing increasing numbers of police in Kyiv. Elected premier Viktor Yanukovych was deposed and forced to flee his country. The far right promptly rose and took over with force. The coup alone killed eight hundred people.
Far right nationalists, Fascists, Nazists and violent conservatives all supported the US and EU backed coup in Ukraine. Right Sector, Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People's Self-Defence, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, the all Ukrainian Union Fatherland, all Ukrainian Union Freedom and the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (the acronym of which spells the Ukrainian idiom for “punch”) all supported the US and EU coup. All of those parties range from the right to the far right. Fatherland, Right Sector and Azov Battalion affiliates have all openly called for Russian genocide. In addition the Nazist junta began persecuting and murdering Ashkenazim Jews and attacking synagogues in Ukraine. This had led to a war fought mainly in the east of Ukraine in the predominantly Russian Lugansk and Donetsk provinces. There have been massacres in Odessa, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia and Kharkiv. Ten thousand have died, twenty thousand have been wounded and over two million Ukrainians have fled their homes. Did it serve EU interests? The Netherlands voted against the European Union on the matter of Ukraine, Brexit has happened and there is fresh tensions between Moldova, US/EU ally, and Transnistria, Russian ally bordering Ukraine, so it could be argued that it does not. It has not improved the living conditions of Europeans as the EU and states within it still implement austere economic budgets despite appropriating increasing revenue from it's citizens. All it has done has created unnecessary and unwanted tension with arguably Europe's most powerful nation with a strong nuclear arsenal.

The EU has provided over €7,874,000,000 to groups involved in the regime change agenda in Syria. The EU even lifted an arms embargo on Syria to provide the aid which they pretended was “non lethal”. The aid provided was enough to kill over 314,737 Syrians so the assertion that the aid was not lethal is ludicrous on face value. Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Britain all actively and militarily support Kurdistan in this conflict as members of the EU. Operation Inherent Resolve, the West Gulf Council military operation to support Kurdistan, has not prevented Kurdistan's opponents killing 3,262 Kurdish military personnel. Out of thirty one major terrorist attacks in EU nations since December 2010 twenty eight have been Wahhabi terrorists engaging in sectarian and racist violence. This is undoubtedly the consequence of supporting Wahhabi groups, which the aforementioned terrorists were members of, in regime change agendas against Libya and Syria.

It is not as if the EU can afford to follow America or Britain's militaristic and interventionist instincts and tendencies in relation to foreign policy and foreign relations. The EU has an economy worth €15 trillion yet has 37,840,000 unemployed people. Italy, Portugal and Greece have all experienced their economies shrinking over the last decade as members of the European Union. Does anyone believe the conditions above are conducive to providing safety for over six million refugees escaping the needless conflicts described in previous paragraphs? No one should be under the illusion that increased pressure on austerity hit public services is avoidable in the current scenario. It is not. It is an inevitability. To prevent such a dystopic situation it would be preferable to avoid and prevent military interventions which destroy countries where millions of people live prior to action being taken. Libya has a population of five million, Syria has twenty two million and in Ukraine there are forty five million people. The EU destroyed three countries with over seventy million people combined in their territories with brutal force against its own self interest especially in relation to it's own keen sense of self preservation.

If the EU want German, French, Dutch, Irish, Italian and Greek exits to follow Brexit then all they have to do is continue their irrational neoconservative foreign policy. Evidence of this is Trump's paleoconservatism defeating the neoconservatism of Hillary Clinton and Trump's paleoconservatism emerging victorious in Republican primaries against neoconservative rival candidates. Public perceptions and political trends can go from Europe to the rest of the Occident and vice versa. People are voting en masse against the establishment across the western world. This ought to be extremely apparent to the autocrats of Brussels. The destruction of west Asia and north Africa create fertile hotbeds for Wahhabi extremists to recruit militants. This is completely transparent to the public of Europe. The public of Europe would strongly prefer that their tax monies were not used to create hornet nests in the southern and eastern Mediterranean. Another disastrous dovetailing of US foreign policy by the EU is the unquestioning support of the Zionist state of Medinat Yisrael. Global Research has reported the fact that the EU directly funds the military of the Zionist state to the tune of €80,000,000,000 annually. People in Europe do not want to fund Zionist allies of Wahhabi emirates, Wahhabi emirates or militant groups connected to said Wahhabi emirates. The Federalist reported that the security issue of “radical Islamic (sic) terror” id est the militant Wahhabi ideology was a motivating factor not only for Trump voters but Brexit voters as well. How could the latter trust a Brussels elite courting Turkey into the EU when Turkey has territory in Kurdistan proximal to conflicts where zealous far right Wahhabi militants are heavily active? Would that not make Wahhabi militant access to the federation of states much easier?

The Occidental public know these military interventions breed resentment and division between East and West, between the West and Africa, between the West and west Asia, between Christians and Muslims, between Aryans and Arabs, between Germanic and Slavic and between the belligerent parties to the conflicts themselves. The Occidental public are all too aware these scenarios do not bode well for their economic, physical, political, social and cultural security. Hence they oppose such cataclysmic disasters and institutions such as the EU and it's military wing NATO who epitomise and embody the insane ideology that creates said catastrophes. Neoconservatism and liberal interventionism demonstrate the dictionary definition of insanity. Insanity is repeating the same actions over and over while expecting different results. Desert Storm led to mass casualties, ethnic violence and resentment. Operation Iraqi Liberation led to a greater amount of genocidal acts, more overt ethnic hatred and an even more bitter legacy. EU and NATO nations supported those interventionist coalitions with America yet expected different results. Ba'athist Iraq was diminished after Desert Storm with Wahhabi propagandist emboldened and Iraq's people were even more severely diminished after “Iraqi Liberation”. In addition the Iraqis also had al Qaeda and ISIS who were more empowered than ever to deal with in the latter. This is not the only time EU and NATO nations have engaged in senseless and detrimental military repetition. When EU and NATO intervened in Yugoslavia the first time was in Croatia. There was mass murder, widespread ethnic cleansing and gross acts of genocide. A few years later the EU, NATO and US bombed Bosnia and Herzegovina heavily. Again many people were violently and gruesomely killed, there was ethnic cleansing all over the republic and genocidal horrors emerged. Half a decade after that shameful debacle EU, NATO and US thought it would be third time lucky with the bludgeoned federation of Yugoslavia in the Albanian province of Kosovo. The Kosovo War was no different from the Croatian War or the Bosnian War. The Maidan coup in Ukraine showed that the EU, NATO and US had not learned from the previous examples of insanity in militarily intervening in Slavic nations and creating terrible racial conflicts and ethnic bloodbaths.

Intervening in Iraq during Desert Storm showed that the EU and NATO had not learned from member nations disastrously intervening in Lebanon, another Arabic country, and that the US had not learned from the intervention under George HW Bush and Reagan's two interventions in Libya building yet more resentment in Arab nations. “Containment”, id est dropping bombs while economically sanctioning, and overthrowing Ba'athist Iraq in Operation Iraqi Liberation showed that the US, EU and NATO nations still had not learned their lessons regarding violent interference in Arab nations. Overthrowing the Libyan Jamahiriya and attempting to overthrow Ba'athist Syria shows the extremely zealous degree of insanity in their steadfast belief in militaristic neoconservatism.

This insane military has heavy financial and economic costs. France spent FF198,000,000,000/ €30,000,000,000 on it's military in 1992. France now spends €43.5 billion on the military which would be the equivalent of spending FF287.1 billion. This shows the cost of French intervention in Afghanistan, Central Africa, Cote d'Ivoire, Chad, Iraq, Libya, Mali and Somalia since 2001. Britain still has military bases in Ascension, Bahrain, Belize, Bermuda, Brunei, Canada,Chagos, Cyprus, Falklands/ Malvinas, Germany, Gibraltar, India, Ireland, Kenya, Montserrat, Qatar and Singapore. Britain's military expenditure has went from £22.9 billion in 1992, to £44.87 billion today. Germany saw a $5.5 billion increase on military expenditure in the same period from DM52 billion ($34bn) in 1992 to €36.6 billion/ $39.4 billion in the latest German budget. If this reckless increases in wasteful military spending had not been implemented the whole painful austerity program which hurt the people of Europe could easily have been completely avoided. That means the three most powerful military forces in western Europe spends over $146.5 billion every year. This is criminally insane and unsustainable. EU and NATO nations cannot afford to keep spending over €387,000,000 per capita on military. The EU cannot afford to keep having military budgets of $226,730,000,000 for regime change agendas not in the interest of the public in their nations especially when their people are already suffering cuts to public service provision with draconian and callous austerity budgets. Not only is this a grossly unfair injustice but these are not positive and optimistic omens for stability and security in Europe or anywhere else for that matter.