Financial Strategist: Trade War Could Usher In Dire Financial Crisis MUCH SOONER

According to a Societe Generale strategist Albert Edwards, a trade war would bring about a financial crisis a lot sooner than anyone expected. Edwards has warned in the past that currency devaluation could spark an economic recession worse than 2008, and now he’s sounding the alarm about Donald Trump’s trade policies.

Edwards now points to the Trump administration’s trade policy as yet another catalyst that could hasten the next crisis. Recent tariffs the US imposed on steel and aluminum imports threaten a full-scale trade war, he claimed.  While tariffs and taxes always get passed onto the American consumer in the form of higher costs for goods, it is unfortunate that the tariff talk is ongoing.

The US could also turn on other trading partners as Trump continues to advance his “America First” agenda, reported the Financial Tribune. “Boiling away in the background is Germany’s, and now also the eurozone’s, outsized trade surpluses” with the US, Edwards said. He added, “Expect Trump to soon turn his protectionist fire on both Germany and the EU. That will be messy.”But there is some good news many in the mainstream media continue to ignore:

While much of what Trump is announcing today has already been leaked, here are the details of the import tariffs Donald Trump formally adopted on steel and aluminium imports which allow US allies to negotiate and apply for exemptions, a sign of the growing concern that the president was alienating America’s closest international partners, and that 2 of the 4 largest foreign suppliers of steel will be exempt. –Zerohedge

“A trade war and competitive currency devaluation was always going to be the end game in our Ice Age thesis as a global deflationary bust destroyed wealth, profits, and jobs,” Edwards said in a note on Thursday. “But it looks as if it might be arriving sooner than we had anticipated.”

China exports just 1.1% of its steel to the United States, therefore, the tariffs are considered unlikely to do any serious damage to Chinese businesses. The more immediate fuel for a trade war, Edwards said, is retaliatory action against China by the US for alleged intellectual property theft. The Nikkei Asian Review reported Wednesday that the US was set to impose tariffs on $60 billion worth of Chinese products as punishment. Yet remember, a tariff isn’t going to punish the Chinese; it will punish the American consumer as prices go up to cover the cost of the new tax.

A White House official says there will be no significant downstream price effects, and thus no significant downstream job effects, according to Zerohedge. But that expectation counters multiple statements and prognostications from several companies and industry groups that use steel and aluminum, as well as lawmakers representing them, who have warned the tariffs will harm their businesses or industries.

George Soros: Huge Investments In Globalism and Political Elites

Billionaire and Hungarian born investor George Soros is making waves again. He’s meddling in the Brexit issue by giving £100,000 to Best for Britain, a globalist anti-sovereign campaign.

Soros angered Brexiteers by donating even more money to a campaign desperate to keep Britain under the thumb of the European Union’s control. The move comes on the heels of Soros drawing fire from Brexiteers when it emerged he was donating £400,000 to the campaign group Best for Britain to try and halt withdrawal from the EU.

The group’s CEO Eloise Todd said Brexit could still be stopped and it wouldn’t take much. Best for Britain seeks to stop Brexit and British sovereignty by a simple parliament vote. So why do they need Soros’ money? Because globalism cannot succeed when nations seek sovereignty.  “The UK’s future with the EU is not a done deal, there is still a vote to come and people across the country deserve to know the truth about the options on the table: one of which is staying and leading in the EU,” Todd said.

Hungarian-born Soros, one of the world’s richest men who made a billion dollars betting against Britain on Black Wednesday in 1992, accused critics of a maligning him. “I am happy to take the fight to those who have tried to use a smear campaign, not arguments, to prop up their failing case,” Soros told The Guardian. 

In a bid to regain the initiative on Brexit after a rocky few weeks during which Cabinet tensions came to the surface, Prime Minister Theresa May is set to make two keynote addresses. The propaganda surrounding Brexit is fierce and attempting to manipulate the public into accepting the EU’s dictatorial control over the UK.  Brexiteers are likened to Nazis, while control of the UK is celebrated by those who peddle globalism and tyranny.

Britain has a tough battle ahead to preserve their sovereignty; as taking back power has always been difficult, and even George Soros won’t go down without a fight.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will kick-off the Brexit blitz on Wednesday, Valentine’s Day, with a call for unity over Brexit. Theresa May will deliver a major speech on post-Brexit UK-EU security in Germany next Saturday and will round off the process in about three weeks’ time with a keynote address on the overall relationship, following a special “away day” summit of the Cabinet withdrawal committee at Chequers.

Switzerland’s Top Party Initiates Referendum to Close Borders

By Dan Lyman  1-17-2018

The Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a nationalist-populist faction that currently holds the most seats in Switzerland’s Federal Assembly, will end ‘free movement’ agreements with the EU, returning full immigration controls to Bern.

The initiative has been approved by the Federal Chancellery and must now garner 100,000 signatures by July 16, 2019, before it can be put to a national vote, pending further consideration by parliament. If successful, the Swiss government would have one year to negotiate the termination of various agreements with Brussels.

Key arguments from the initiative include –

“A free and self-determined country like Switzerland has to control immigration itself, as most of the successful countries in the world do. It would never occur to them to grant over 500 million citizens of other states a legal right to immigration. Rather, many countries tighten their immigration laws against the background of global political developments with the aim of aligning immigration strictly with their economic needs, their security and the country’s potential.“

“Since the introduction of the free movement of persons with the EU, we no longer determine who is allowed to come to Switzerland and who does not. This must be over.  The limitation initiative requires that immigration be regulated and controlled independently by Switzerland.“

Switzerland is not an EU member state, but maintains bilateral agreements with the bloc, including free movement permissions within the Schengen Area which enable EU citizens to live and work in the country, in exchange for Switzerland’s ease of access to the European ‘single market.’

However, immigration has quickly become a sore subject in Switzerland as net population growth is approaching 80,000 per year, with nearly one-quarter of the country’s 8.3 million inhabitants now being foreigners, as well as another 300,000-plus citizens of neighboring countries who cross borders daily to work in Switzerland and enjoy its comparatively higher wages.

Nearly half of foreigners in Switzerland are collecting welfare benefits, and an influx of migrants are changing the culture, and contributing to a rise in crime and a deterioration of Switzerland’s world-renowned reputation as one of the safest countries in the world.

“Our country has undergone immigration in recent years like never before. Its population growth has exploded to that of a third-world country,” said Lukas Reimann, President of Action for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland, which co-authored the initiative. “Apart from the mountain regions, Switzerland now has one of the highest population densities in Europe.”

SVP leader Albert Rösti echoed these sentiments, saying, “A free and sovereign country like Switzerland must autonomously regulate immigration on its territory. Most of the world’s best performing states are doing this.”

Read more at newswars.com

 

 

 

The post Switzerland’s Top Party Initiates Referendum to Close Borders appeared first on Oath Keepers.

“The Battle of Brexit” – What’s Actually Going On?

By Julian Rose

In 2016, under Prime Minister David Cameron, UK citizens were offered a referendum in order to decide whether or not the UK should stay in the European Union, and continue to have most of its affairs run from Brussels.

The result, as most know, was that a majority voted in favor of leaving the EU. 17.3 million voted this way.

Cameron unknowingly committed political suicide by allowing the referendum to take place; as he – and his advisors – were convinced that the majority would vote in favor of staying in the EU.

So began the saga called ‘Brexit’.

A new Prime Minister was chosen by the Conservative party, Theresa May, ex-head of the Home Office. May was seen by her cabinet colleagues as best able to negotiate the terms involved in leaving the EU. However, no country has ever quit the EU before, so there is no precedent for what the precise procedures will be.

But what we hear, is that it will take a minimum of two years to achieve, and that around 50 to 70 billion pounds will be the price to be paid for liberty. What we also know is that, to enable the transition to take place, the government has to adopt the entire EU rule book as part of British law, before then being eligible to take out those rules that the country decides in doesn’t want to adhere to! A truly bizarre concept – and a strong hint that something else is actually going on here.

Brexit is to be found on the front page of the national UK press almost daily. It is, in spite of the referendum victory for the ‘leave’ proponents, a highly controversial situation. One which has been revealed to be extremely complex, largely due to the fact that the entire divorce proceedings have been left in the hands of bureaucrats from both sides of the English Channel.

What are the motives for imposing the various conditions that these faceless clerks are imposing on the process? Who is actually behind this agenda – pulling the hidden strings?

There are significant numbers of UK citizens who don’t want the UK to go through this divorce. They are headed by some powerful media oligarchs and big business interests. These ‘stay’ proponents are using their considerable firepower to try to persuade the nation that the UK will suffer serious economic decline, should the full exit be achieved.

They have recently revived ex-Prime Minister and war criminal, Tony Blair, to lead their cause. Blair, you will remember, was the one to insist that Iraq had a hidden cache of weapons of mass destruction – and that Saddam Hussein was lying, saying that his country had no such weapons.

We shouldn’t need to remind ourselves that the entire horror of the invasion and military destruction of Iraq was predicated upon a fabrication of evidence concerning the existence of these weapons, at the insistence of Tony Blair and George Bush, the then US President.

So The Battle of Brexit rages, day in day out. But it transpires that all the supposed in-fighting and negotiation procedures with Brussels, are, in all likelihood, a smoke screen. A smoke screen for something far more devious which is going on just under the surface.

What is this unseen devious activity?

The activity to which I refer relates to the current ramping-up of the imposition of a totalitarian ‘European Super State’ on all EU member states.

As I explained in ‘A Totalitarian Europe Now On Our Doorstep’, a significant element of this imposition, is a an inter-EU membership agreement known as PESCO: ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’. PESCO is a European-wide military unification programme, designed to bolster the power of the bloc and, in partnership with NATO, act as a new strategic force to challenge ‘Russian aggression’. One of the most over-hyped scare stories of 2017.

The UK has the largest military defense unit within Europe. A European-wide ‘One Army’ cannot do much without the involvement of the UK’s military.

What has been taking place ‘under the surface’ of the supposed Brexit deal, is a secretive negotiation, led by Theresa May, to pave the way for the British armed forces to be amalgamated into the new Single European Army. An army whose leadership is presently moving into the hands of French and German military command; with Germany likely to come out on top, as the main controlling agent once plans are completed.

England’s exit from the EU, in order to be effective, cannot be achieved if its armed forces are no longer capable of defending its status as a Sovereign Nation State. And this will be the position if Prime Minister May completes the negotiation process before anyone in England wakes-up to what is really happening.

Already, the Royal Navy has been run-down to levels unseen for decades. The air force has also been weakened and the army has shrunk by 30% in the past ten years. Some of this is due to government cuts in military spending, but mostly it is directly attributable to to the ‘selling-off’ of British defense forces to the Brussels military unification programme.

The current head of this programme, Federica Mogherini, who is also Vice President of the European Commission, stated in a recent interview in Brussels, that the new army would be a “Credible security provider worldwide” and added “We are looking for possibilities to deploy one of our battle groups.” An ominous threat indeed and further indication of global control interests.

How can the United Kingdom become an independent nation once again, if she has almost no army, navvy or air force to protect her shores?

Which causes one to ask: Is Brexit real? Or is the nation being sold-out – with Britain, far from freeing itself, becoming ever more tied-in to the Brussels globalist agenda? An agenda concerned with building a New World Order, comprising – as one of its key attributes – a supranational centralized European Union acting as ‘The United States of Europe’. And in the process, wiping-out the existence of the Sovereign Nation State from the political and geographical map, altogether.

The totalitarian train is advancing down its preordained track, and it is clear that the result of the referendum posed a significant threat to this process. A threat which the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Soros and Netanyahu power cabal, could not allow.

With the process of European military unification now well advanced, the Superstate is set to dwarf its component parts. Already the establishment of a ‘One Europe Treasury’ promised by President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, will centralize EU member states’ fiscal procedures, secret service and police operations, and now each country’s military as well.

One can see why Brexit couldn’t be allowed to happen. Britain’s military is needed to support the totalitarian state, not to protect the sovereignty of the British Isles.

There is no Brexit. It is a sham. But the majority of British citizens have failed to notice the two-faced manipulations of their Prime Minister. Those who voted ‘leave’ still believe that England will quit the Union and, amongst other things, be free to negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world, as of old.

The coming year will reveal what course of events predominate. But with cracks appearing in European Union unity, and a growing number of nations questioning their commitment to the technocratic cabal leadership in Brussels, there is a growing sense of unease spreading through the kingdom of the current rule makers.

2018 could be the year in which the tide is turned. Turned in favor of a growing rebellion against the imposition of centralized slavery by a one point control system. A system imposed in order to support the further agrandissement of the bloodline family elites who cling-on to their despotic power bases across the world.

We, ‘the people’, are now discovering that we have the powers necessary to put an end to our mostly self-imposed slavery and to go forward driven by the spirit of creativity. I say ‘self-imposed’ because we have, wittingly or unwittingly, allowed ourselves to be manipulated by those who seek supreme control over the planet and its peoples.

The first step in bringing about change for the better, is to finally cease allowing ourselves to indulge in this slavish form of self-deception. Courage to all in 2018!

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer, actor and international activist.

He is President of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. Julian is the author of two acclaimed titles: Changing Course for Life and In Defense of Life, which can be purchased by visiting www.julianrose.info. He has just completed his third book Overcoming the Mechanistic Mind for which he is currently seeking a publisher.

France Speaks English Now

France’s youngest President, Emanuel Macron has been much derided since taking office in May, for likening himself to Jupiter, with make-up for the cameras, and expensive haircuts. His labor reforms, which roll back decades of workers’ gains, provoked massive opposition.

Knowing his neo-liberal credentials, I was disappointed when he won, even though, during the campaign, I had perceived a level of energy unusual among French politicians. When, shortly after his victory, he received Vladimir Putin at Versailles, I wrote:

“While Macron can be gently chided for believing that he will succeed where others gave up before trying (one can almost hear a Trumpian ‘I alone can fix this’ when he convenes Mediterranean leaders to hammer out a policy on immigrants instead of criticizing the Schengen Agreement’s open borders), I applaud his efforts with Angela Merkel to give the European Union a finance minister and budget. (The failure of the Euro is ascribed, among other things, to the fact that each country has its own economic rules.”)

“Scarcely noticed by the French press, Macron initiated his tenure by inviting the leaders of the two nuclear powers that have a say over Europe on state visits. He showed his acumen by welcoming the Russian President to Versailles, on the occasion of the 300th year anniversary of Peter the Great’s visit to the Sun King’s palace, and by displaying to the American President the tomb of Napoleon at Les Invalides, where he was given full military honors. I believe the French should also applaud Macron’s ‘Jupiterian’ efforts to tackle problems that threaten the future, not only of France, but of Europe.”

Europe’s foremost problem, thanks to US wars that decimated parts of the Middle East and Africa, has been the seemingly uncontrollable surge of Muslim migrants. NATO’s 2011 bombing campaign, which took out Lybia’s relatively successful leader, Muammar Ghaddafi, created a chaotic situation which enabled traffickers to sell young Africans fleeing conflict, drought, famine and wars, passage to Europe, knowing that thousands would perish crossing the Mediterranean in makeshift embarkations. When confronted with European sea patrols out to prevent these departures, the traffickers turned to trading those hoping to leave on an open market as slaves.

In what were derided as colonial attitudes, the new president at first suggested that France could set up immigration processing centers in Africa, while also suggesting that African women were having too many babies. Undeterred, he called on the UN Security Council to take action against “crimes against humanity”, and prodded Europe to offer African countries more development aid in return for tightening their borders. Then he planned a trip to coincide with the European and African Unions’ Summit, whose theme was Youth, at which he proposed a joint focus on innovation and locally created jobs, so that Africans would no longer need to emigrate.

He toured West Africa’s largest solar power park, emphasizing his twin commitment to preserve the planet and encourage Africa to become part of the high tech world. Visiting schools and addressing university students, he wisely anticipated popular opposition to the long-standing presence of France’s military on the continent by referring to terrorism and presenting it as cooperation with local forces against terrorism, in a ‘we can do this together’ tone. But it may have been his mastery of English that served him best. From the end of the nineteenth century well into the twentieth, France and Great Britain competed for African lands. At present, the number of French and English-speaking African nations is about even, however, the British are widely known to be clumsy French speakers, while the French have long refused to accept the fact that their language was superseded by English as the world’s foremost means of communication.

In Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, Macron encouraged young people to speak French, claiming the language of Voltaire would eventually be spoken across Africa and the world. Then, in English-speaking Ghana, one of the African countries farthest along in terms of democracy and development, he demonstrated his flawless English. As seen on France 24, the crowds’ enthusiasm at hearing a French President speak to them in a language they all understood was palpable. Add to that Macron’s usual wide-armed gestures (which he may have copied from De Gaulle, especially when he raises his arms in a sort of ‘v’) together with his upbeat delivery, and the title of ‘Jupiterian’ may not be far fetched after all — at least for now.

Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.

This Border Wall Reduced Illegal Immigration By Over 99%

There is a border wall in existence that reduced illegal immigration by over 99%. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary put up a double fence along the border of his country with Serbia, and the results were staggering.

This tweet sums up the statistical data behind the wall and reduction in illegal immigration. However, somehow the debate over Donald Trump’s wall is still ongoing.

#HUNGARY Illegal Immigration Numbers

2015: 391,000

::::::::::::::::::::::::WALL BUILT::::::::::::::::::::::::

2016: 18,236
2017: 1,184 pic.twitter.com/eJhx3a7FuX

— The Daily Sheeple (@TheDailySheeple) September 19, 2017

Recent Facebook ads assure social media users who support Trump’s wall that he will succeed at building it as promised during his campaign.

“There’s been a lot of noise and a lot of rumors,” reads the ad on Trump’s personal Facebook page. “WE WILL BUILD A WALL (NOT A FENCE) ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES,” it adds, calling the issue “non-negotiable.”

The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 14, 2017

As pointed out by Reason, discussions should be had about the cost and burden on the taxpayers because of the proposed wall. But setting the cost issue aside, as evidenced by the Hungary numbers, barriers actually do the heavy work of keeping people out. Hungary’s wall was built over two years ago, and the flood of people illegally entering the country has all but stopped.

Speaking on the second anniversary of the government’s move to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia — which is also an external border for the European Union — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor György Bakondi announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.

“The system of technical barriers is the key to the success of border security, and without it, it would be impossible to stop the mass arrival of immigrants”, the security chief explained. –Hot Air

The simple statistics on the wall’s efficacy are staggering. In 2015 there were an estimated 390,000 illegal border crossings. So far this year that number is barely over one thousand. It’s hard to say that a barrier or wall won’t do the trick when it comes to stopping the flood of illegal immigrants. And the Prime Minister of Hungary is all too happy to do what’s best for his country.

Viktor Orban was originally told by the European Union that he couldn’t put the fence up in the first place. He proceeded to build it anyway, doubled its size, and then sent a bill for half the cost to the EU. It’s doubtful he’s expecting repayment, however, the little jab at the EU was probably payment enough. Then, when Angela Merkel announced that Hungary would have to stop defying the edicts of Brussels, he thanked her for her input and then basically told her to go pound sand. Orban has stood up to tyrants trying to tell him what to do for years, and his wall has proved all of them wrong.

This isn’t to say that we don’t face more challenges than Hungary. The United States has a much larger border and more variable terrain to cover. But the problem is not with engineering or the physics behind the building of a wall – it’s the politics.

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 271 people
Date: September 20th, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

‘HANDS OFF POLAND’ – POLES BLAST ‘ARROGANT’ EU BULLIES

Poland demands respect from EU imperialists

Poland’s Minister of Justice delivered a scathing response to European Union bureaucrats who are attempting to bully the staunchly anti-migrant country as the battle over ‘refugee resettlement’ quotas rages on.

Zbiegniew Ziobro directed his comments at Frans Timmermans, Vice President of the European Commission, who has established himself as one of the EU’s most aggressive attack dogs against a growing list of member states who oppose the migrant schemes.

“We all know from school, in history class, that the Netherlands has a long experience in colonialism, but bad habits must be stamped out,” said Ziobro, correlating Timmermans’ Dutch roots to his penchant for imperious interventionism. “I’d like to ask Mr. Timmermans to stop speaking with such insolence and arrogance about Poland, and to Poles, and to the Polish authorities because we deserve respect.”

“We expect and demand respect.”

Polish nationalists and Euroskeptics have taken up the refrain of “Hands off Poland,” and rumblings of #Polexit grow louder by the day.

The Polish government is in the midst of procedures to reshape elements of its judicial system, but the EU has threatened to punish the country severely if they follow through, accusing Warsaw of creating a “systematic threat to the rule of law in Poland” and possibly ‘breaching fundamental human rights.’

The reforms are aimed at dismantling a “privileged caste” of left-wing activist lawyers and judges, obligating ‘Christian values’ to be considered in Supreme Court rulings, and shaking up the entire judiciary by dismissing many sitting judges while also re-structuring how they are appointed.

Read more at Infowars

.

EU Proposes Freezing Bank Accounts to Bailout Megabanks

By Claire Bernish

After nervous customers panicked and drained their accounts, ultimately causing the collapse of Spanish bank, Banco Popular, equally jittery European Union officials are debating the merits of freezing access — preventing anyone from withdrawing any money — at the first sign of a bank run.

Proponents claim measures to halt a rush of withdrawals would prevent the downfall of floundering financial institutions at their most vulnerable point — in hopes of staving off a catastrophe at least as harrowing as that of 2008 — while detractors admonish the move might have precisely the opposite effect, with investors rushing to yank funds at the slightest indication of trouble.

“The desire is to prevent a bank run, so that when a bank is in a critical situation it is not pushed over the edge,” ‘a person familiar with German government’s thinking’ told Reuters.

“Giving supervisors the power to temporarily block bank accounts at ailing lenders is ‘a feasible option,’ a paper prepared by the Estonian presidency of the EU said, acknowledging that member states were divided on the issue,” Reuters reports.

“EU countries which already allow a moratorium on bank payouts in insolvency procedures at national level, like Germany, support the measure, officials said.”

A cursory autopsy of last month’s Banco Popular failure had economic officials scrambling to figure out how best to prevent a similar financial debacle; but the idea of cutting customers’ access to their own funds when conditions warrant, blasts apart a Pandora’s Box of potentialities — all, favoring the State and banking industry over individual customers.

While officials contend cutting off account access would theoretically prevent a bank already in distress from going under, when scores of people withdraw money at once, the proposal toes a fraught but sacrosanct line blocking government overreach from private, individual finance.

According to the Estonian paper perused by Reuters, an additional measure proposed the development of a mechanism whereby customers in such a situation could withdraw “at least a limited amount of funds.”

“We strongly believe that this would incentivize depositors to run from a bank at an early stage,” Charlie Bannister of the banking lobby group, Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME), told Reuters, alluding to the possible whiplash effect described above.

Envoys of the European Union originally discussed these withdrawal restrictions on July 13, with further talks set for September, but lawmakers would have to concur before any variant of the plan could be put in place. Continues Reuters:

The plan, if agreed, would contrast with legislative proposals made by the European Commission in November that aimed to strengthen supervisors’ powers to suspend withdrawals, but excluded from the moratorium insured depositors, which under EU rules are those below 100,000 euros ($117,000).

Under the plan discussed by EU states, pay-outs could be suspended for five working days and the block could be extended to a maximum of 20 days in exceptional circumstances, the Estonian document said.

Existing EU rules allow a two-day suspension of some payouts by failing banks, but the moratorium does not include deposits.

In fact, only just now have insured deposits debuted as a target for the withdrawal moratorium, as authorities previously felt such a move “may have a negative impact on market confidence.”

Nevertheless, economic and banking troubles have hit several European nations in recent years, such as the Cyprus fiasco, as described by Bitcoinist,

Back in 2013, Cyprus’ banking crisis was a hair’s breadth away from a total economic collapse. Cypriot banks were desperate for a bailout from the EU and IMF and many account holders feared that their deposits would vanish. This fear caused a classic bank run and people were rushing to banks and ATMs in order to withdraw as much money as they could.

Inevitably, cash became scarce and the ATMs stopped working. Many saw Bitcoin as the last option to secure their funds.

With severely curtailed faith in Western and central banking institutions, that European Union insiders would look first to penalize customers for a bank’s poor planning and management in the midst of a theoretical future crisis typifies the impetus for throngs of people riding the tumultuous cryptocurrency wave as far away from Big Banks as possible.

Considering officials now hope to revoke access to bank accounts at perhaps the time customers would most need it, the marriage of State and finance obviates how insignificant the needs of the so-called little guy when the government sees only green.

Claire Bernish began writing as an independent, investigative journalist in 2015, with works published and republished around the world. Not one to hold back, Claire’s particular areas of interest include U.S. foreign policy, analysis of international affairs, and everything pertaining to transparency and thwarting censorship. To keep up with the latest uncensored news, follow her on Facebook or Twitter: @Subversive_Pen. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

Save the Banks in the Name of the “Greater Good”

[image: wallstreetitalia.com]

(The Real Agenda News) The liquidation of “too big to fail” banks ensures that large investors will get paid while average Joes will be stiffed with the bill.

Taxpayers, will again have to the bailout insolvent banks. Otherwise, central bankers say, the risk of a systemic collapse would be very real.

What they do not say is that what is at stake is their credibility, reputation and that of the rules they created to impose schemes that resulted precisely in today’s financial instability.

The European Commission defended the liquidation of Veneto Banca and Popolare of Vicenza.

The two Italian banks closed with public money in spite of the existence of the so-called European Banking Union, the Community Directives, which should respond for cases like those cited above.

Just as it happened in Spain and Greece, central bankers have loaded the losses on shareholders, bondholders and taxpayers.

“The rules applied in this case are completely in line with the legal framework that was put in place after the crisis,” said a spokeswoman for the Commission, who referred to the “general interest” as the main argument.

Italy will inject € 17 billion of taxpayers money, to rescue “higher-quality debt” from these banks. Please understand that “high quality debt” is nothing else that monies invested irresponsibly.

Brussels approved the rescue over the weekend, arguing that such State aid does not distort competition as these two banks disappear.

But it is Intesa, one of the large Italian bank, that will receive the greatest injection in its balance sheets.

With the new European resolution authorities decreed that these two banks can be liquidated because they are not systemic, that is, their bankruptcy does not affect the whole European banking systems as their assets total € 55 billion.

According to the agreement, the liquidation must be done under Italian law: they apply the rules of the State to save the bondholders from burning arguing that these two entities are systemic, but only for the Veneto region.

The European Commission’s Competition Commissioner, Magrethe Vestager swallowed that explanation, accepted State aid and prayed for  peace and glory.

Meanwhile, analysts and the European Parliament opposed the rescue yesterday.

In summary, experts and MPs come to say that the banking union is a scam: the taxpayer continues to save banks.

There are no transnational operations and that causes many more closures of branches and dismissals: Intesa will end up with the closing of 60% of the offices and the dismissal of 40% of the staff of the two Veneto region entities.

“Anything will be done to avoid the losses to the debt, and that generates a system of perverse incentives: you have to have national champions like Santander or Intesa to swallow the problem, conveniently aided, when necessary “, explained financial sources.

Against those arguments, Brussels has been justifying for two days that Italy complies with the rules. “Completely,” they stress.

The End Of The (Petro)Dollar: What The Fed Doesn't Want You To Know

Authored by Shaun Bradley via TheAntiMedia.org,

The United States’ ability to maintain its influence over the rest of the world has been slowly diminishing. Since the petrodollar was established in 1971, U.S. currency has monopolized international trade through oil deals with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and continuous military interventions. There is, however, growing opposition to the American standard, and it gained more support recently when several Gulf states suddenly blockaded Qatar, which they accused of funding terrorism.

Despite the mainstream narrative, there are several other reasons why Qatar is in the crosshairs. Over the past two years, it conducted over $86 billion worth of transactions in Chinese yuan and has signed other agreements with China that encourage further economic cooperation. Qatar also shares the world’s largest natural gas field with Iran, giving the two countries significant regional influence to expand their own trade deals.

Meanwhile, uncontrollable debt and political divisions in the United States are clear signs of vulnerability. The Chinese and Russians proactively set up alternative financial systems for countries looking to distance themselves from the Federal Reserve.  After the IMF accepted the yuan into its basket of reserve currencies in October of last year, investors and economists finally started to pay attention. The economic power held by the Federal Reserve has been key in financing the American empire, but geopolitical changes are happening fast. The United States’ reputation has been tarnished by decades of undeclared wars, mass surveillance, and catastrophic foreign policy.

One of America’s best remaining assets is its military strength, but it’s useless without a strong economy to fund it. Rival coalitions like the BRICS nations aren’t challenging the established order head on and are instead opting to undermine its financial support. Qatar is just the latest country to take steps to bypass the U.S. dollar. Russia made headlines in 2016 when they started accepting payments in yuan and took over as China’s largest oil partner, stealing a huge market share from Saudi Arabia in the process. Iran also dropped the dollar earlier this year in response to President Trump’s travel ban. As the tide continues to turn against the petrodollar, eventually even our allies will start to question what best serves their own interests.

Many E.U. member states are clashing with the unelected leadership in Brussels over immigration, terrorism, and austerity measures. If no solutions are found and things deteriorate, other countries could potentially follow the U.K.’s lead and vote to leave, as well. It is starting to become obvious that countries in Eastern Europe will look to the East to get the resources their economies need.

China, Russia, and India are all ahead of the curve and started stockpiling gold years ago. They recognize that hard assets will be the measure of true wealth in the near future — not fiat money. The historic hyperinflation that has occurred in these countries solidified the importance of precious metals in their monetary systems. Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of the past and will likely embrace more government bailouts and money printing when faced with the next recession. Even Fed officials have admitted that more quantitative easing is likely the only path going forward.

Several renowned investors have warned about this ongoing shift of economic power from West to East, but bureaucrats and central bankers refuse to admit how serious things could get. The impact on the average person could be devastating if they are not properly educated and prepared for the fallout.

Economist and author James Rickards summarized why China and Russia are so interested in acquiring precious metals:

“They are stuck with their dollars. They fear, rightly, that the US will inflate its way out of its $19 trillion mountain of debt. China’s solution is to buy gold. If dollar inflation emerges, China’s Treasury holdings will devalue, but the dollar price of its gold will soar. A large gold reserve is a prudent diversification.  Russia’s motives are geopolitical. Gold is the model 21st century weapon for financial wars.The US controls dollar payments systems and, with help from European allies, can eject adversaries from the international payments system called Swift. Gold is immune to such assaults. Physical gold in your custody cannot be hacked, erased, or frozen. Moving gold is a simple way for Russia to settle accounts without US interference.”

Mainstream pundits will continue to distract the public with the same optimistic talking points, but taking advantage of this calm before the storm is important. As this transition takes place, central bankers will sacrifice anything and everything to keep their Ponzi scheme going. Only individuals can take the initiative to protect themselves and be able to help others who won’t be as lucky. Those who embrace sound money and cryptocurrencies will thrive in this new competitive global economy, but if America fails to adapt, the same fiat system that gave it power will drag it into poverty.

Google caught favoring itself over competitors, fined $2.7B in E.U. ruling

Google facing two more charges under bloc "competition rules"

Shawn Collins/Flickr

(INTELLIHUB) — Google has been fined €2.4B ($2.7B USD) after a European Union antitrust court ruled the tech giant knowingly favored itself over its competitors online search results.

Two additional charges under bloc ‘competition rules’ may arise.

“What Google has done is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules,” Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in a statement. “It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation.”

Intel was the last to fall victim to Antitrust laws when the corporation was fined €1.2B in 2009.

Withal, the commissioner has also set her sights on the Apple corporation which reportedly owes back tax in Ireland.

Via Intellihub

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

PREVIOUS STORYFEMA Search & Rescue worker admits his Denver-based team arrived to Manhattan 1-day ahead of 9/11

NEXT STORYSenior CNN producer: ‘The entire Trump-Russia narrative is bullsh*t’

Trump Delays Globalist Takeover of Commerce and Environment

The US President blocked initiatives that sought globalist control of environmental policy and international commerce.

The more complicated G7 of the last years has ended up being an exercise of diplomatic juggling.

After two days in search of time to reach consensus in order not to damage the fragile relations with the United States, great pacts have not been achieved beyond the fight against terrorism and sanctions against Russia.

The other six countries, which have formed a block during the two days, agreed to move through a period of uncertainty until the next G20, to be held in Hamburg on 7 July. “Difficult and unsatisfactory,” has been the label used by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The discussions have given rise to a final dilution statement. Shorter than usual – six pages and 39 points.

In fact, in matters such as trade, for example, according to G7 sources who have participated in the meetings, it has been necessary to tiptoe over everything related to the fight against protectionism, the mention of which has finally been included. But it has had to surround himself with nuances like “combating unfair practices” to satisfy the US president’s suspicions about some EU countries.

“Trump has a different trade policy than its predecessor,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. Among the flagrant absences is the null mention of Latin America. Not even in the commercial chapter.

At the end of the summit, however, all leaders have wished to re-mark points of agreement on issues such as Libya, North Korea or the fight against terrorism on the Internet.

Macron, who has not wanted to blame Trump directly from the blockade said that “a few days ago we thought that the US would leave the Paris Accords and there would be no discussion. So I think there has been progress and a good exchange of ideas. That will allow Trump to become aware of the importance of what is at stake, even for its economy.”

But it was difficult to hide the feeling of failure in the big issues. Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, the host of the meeting, has not denied the difficulties generated in the debates.

“It was a real discussion. More authentic than on other occasions. An occasion of confrontation between leaders, as it has been in this case, to show the positions, even if they are different. “

And in the end, the climate issue, on which they exerted all the possible pressure to convince Trump, has been settled in a “we will see” basis.

The joint statement the G7 specifies that six countries remain firm to the commitments made in 2015 in Paris and will await the outcome of the internal reflection launched by the Trump Administration. There was no possibility of more.

Merkel defined the negotiation as “difficult and unsatisfactory”. In fact, this is where one of the hallmarks of this summit has been more clearly defined: six countries plus one. “We must have patience with him,” said G7 sources.

The migratory crisis, whose landings have been diverted from Sicily to Calabria in order not to disturb the order at the summit in Taormina, has been one of the thematic axes of the day.

Italy, the European country most affected at the moment by the phenomenon, wanted to write an annex to the final communiqué where the issue was dealt with in more detail and with a roadmap.

The G7 met Saturday with leaders of Tunisia, Nigeria, Niger, Kenya and Ethiopia with the intention of reaching agreements. Also present were UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde.

But the final communique does not seem to reach much more than the usual good intentions and the Solomonic agreements that leave any initiative on wet paper.

It also highlights the distinction between “immigrants and refugees” and recognizes, with a nod to Trump, the right of states to control their own borders and carry out their own immigration policies.

Beyond the diplomatic varnish surrounding the rhetoric of the final text, the real points of agreement are found in issues such as North Korea, Libya, Syria and the fight against terrorism.

That is, most of the warlike conflicts that threaten global stability. It’s not little. But, again, it is not specified in what terms that balance will be preserved, especially in places like North Korea, where the strength of diplomatic channels is declining.

The lack of a specific US position on the major issues to be discussed at the summit has greatly surprised the other six delegations.

Also the changes of opinion, as in the issue of sanctions on Russia, where at the last minute it was reversed and economic adviser, Gary Cohn, confirmed that they would continue on the same line.

Alarmed by the possible fracture, the group has chosen to tone down, seek agreements and give more time. Above all, thinking about the next G20 summit to be held in Hamburg on 7 and 8 July.

“There are six members with very clear positions and a seventh who needs time to think. We can take this encounter as an apprenticeship,” said a senior source from the participants.

What is clear is that Trump’s lack interest to make fellow leaders feel good has managed to unite the rest of the leaders, especially those in the EU. His ways, gestures, comments on his companies whenever he approached a world leader to refer to his country, the disagreement over German trade, the push to the prime minister of Montenegro worked as a great glue for the fractured EU.

Italian security forces have fired tear gas at groups of far-left protesters who were outside the venue hosting the summit. According to local media there were around a thousand, they carried banners with communist symbols and threw stones at the agents.

If You Care About Privacy, You Should Change Your Twitter Settings Right Now

Authoired by Sarah Cronin via TheAntiMedia.org,

Since Wednesday, Twitter has been sending out emails and notifications to its over 300 million monthly users to inform them of changes to their privacy policy.

The new policy, which goes into effect on June 18, includes changes to data collection, data sharing, and digital advertising. The policy is being run on an ‘opt-out’ basis, meaning that if users do not actively change their settings, these policies will automatically be applied to their accounts.

While Twitter hailed the new policy in their mass email sent out Sunday as one that “dovetails with our heartbeat as a company — a commitment to protecting and defending your privacy,” groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation are not so enthusiastic.

“Contrary to the inviting ‘Sounds good’ button to accept the new policy and get to tweeting, the changes Twitter has made around user tracking and data personalization do not sound good for user privacy,” EFF researcher Gennie Gebhart writes.

EFF, along with Life Hacker and CNET, are encouraging users to customize their privacy settings now before the new changes are automatically enabled in June.

With the new policy, Twitter will be keeping logs for users’ web histories for 30 days instead of 10, a move that Jules Polonetsky, CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum, says expands the pool of people it can track and allows Twitter to make more comprehensive profiles of users.

Interestingly, this change will not apply to E.U. member countries because Europe’s restrictive privacy laws prohibit it.

Twitter also discontinued support for the Do Not Track browser option, which previously allowed users to protect against targeted advertising.

The reason for the change, says TopTechNews.com writer Barbara Ortutay, is therefore clearly not about privacy, but money.

“Targeted ads that are tailored to your whims and tastes are more lucrative than generic ones,” Ortutay writes.

Whether for privacy or profit, the changes are coming. Fortunately, it’s up to users to change their settings and decide how much they want to share.

CNET offers this simple how-to: “Open Settings and go to Settings and privacy > Privacy and safety > Personalization and data. At the top of this page is an option to disable all personalization and data settings; on the Twitter website, click the Disable all.”

EFF notes that users can also review, edit, and/or remove data collected on them in the past by accessing the “Your Twitter data” option also located in settings.

US Just Warned Traveling Citizens That a Terror Attack May Happen at Any Time

In a rather unexpected move, the United States has now issued a terror alert warning citizens about travel throughout the European Union, and — while the warning recalls relatively recent incidents in France, the UK, Russia, and Sweden — its timing, amid hostilities with North Korea and others, implies an ominous prognostication, rather than cautionary heads-up.

For the U.S. Department of State to issue such a warning — unconnected in immediacy to any specific incident in the E.U. — appears to adhere to guidelines of past warnings, in that its impetus likely rests in credible babble of an imminent threat to life.

“While local governments continue counterterrorism operations,” the U.S. Department of State’s newest Travel Alert reads, “the Department nevertheless remains concerned about the potential for future terrorist attacks. U.S. citizens should always be alert to the possibility that terrorist sympathizers or self-radicalized extremists may conduct attacks with little or no warning.”

Interestingly, while the State Department admonishes citizens operatives of the Islamic State could strike at any time, it also cautions specifically against militants of al-Qaeda — the War on Terror’s original Enemy Number One — a group which now claims to be fighting alongside the U.S. in Yemen, among other locations.

Nevertheless, the warning continues,

“Extremists continue to focus on tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities as viable targets. In addition, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, high-profile events, educational institutions, airports, and other soft targets remain priority locations for possible attacks. U.S. citizens should exercise additional vigilance in these and similar locations, in particular during the upcoming summer travel season when large crowds may be common.

“Terrorists persist in employing a variety of tactics, including firearms, explosives, using vehicles as ramming devices, and sharp-edged weapons that are difficult to detect prior to an attack.”

Indeed, caution is necessitated — arguably, everywhere the United States continues fighting militarily in answer to political woes — and although the most dangerous locales undoubtedly lie in direct conflict zones, it is interventionist, imperialist foreign policy to blame for safety concerns.

Slated to continue through September 1, the travel advisement insinuates safety rests in the traveler’s purview — and not in a constriction of troops from areas known hostile to U.S. presence, where rage and a feeling of exploitation thwart any potential good intentions.

By all outward appearances, President Trump’s administration has not quelled the nefarious effects of blowback — a term murkily coined by both the U.S. Intelligence Community and journalists present abroad in delicate situations — comprising the negative and damaging repercussions, direct and surreptitious, from operations like regime change, undesired otherwise by civilian populations.

Blowback could not be more clear from the self-titled Islamic State, whose militants frequently cite U.S. operations interfering in the affairs of predominantly Muslim, sovereign States as the impetus for attacks carried out or threatened.

Unusual in the State Department’s travel alert is its duration and lack of specificity — its ambiguity, alone, suggests U.S. Intelligence might possess additional information not made apparent to travelers to Europe.

Why, when all the conditions listed have not changed for months or years, would State abruptly announce the need for increased vigilance and wariness when traveling abroad to Western-allied nations?

Issuing a caution without elaborating on the details of its sudden imperative nature necessitates questions about the extent of knowledge withheld from the populace. While the matter likely isn’t suspicious beyond what we’ve been told, the Department of State would not announce such a warning were no legitimate threat present.

“We continue to work closely with our European partners and allies on the threat from international terrorism,” the alert concludes. “Information is routinely shared between the United States and our key partners to disrupt terrorist plotting, identify and take action against potential operatives, and strengthen our defenses against potential threats.”

Perhaps, in an abundance of caution, State felt informing the public — without exploding latent fear and paranoia — usurped the need to provide comprehensive information.

Or, perhaps — as aforementioned — the U.S. Department of State knows more than it would ever provide, much less acknowledge openly.

Why is Nationalism Gaining Strength in Europe?

By: The Real Agenda News |

The growing social unrest that exists in the European Union (EU) is fueling the rise of the right.

The Freedom Party (FPÖ) was about to win the Austrian presidency in 2016, the Party for Freedom (PVV) became the second political force in Holland in March and the National Front’s Marine Le Pen could be the most voted candidate in the first round of the French presidential elections on April 23.

Like their predecessors in the interwar period, these parties are nourished by the disenchantment of the population affected by the crisis with the policies applied by the traditional parties and especially by the Social Democrats.

Unlike their predecessors, these parties do not advocate ending parliamentary democracy. But Fidesz parties in Hungary and Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland – whose members behave as right-wingers while denying to be part of that political family – have begun to transform their states after achieving an absolute majority and defending a “Non-liberal National Democracy”.

The right is fed in the first place by malaise due to growing social inequality, high unemployment, job insecurity, loss of purchasing power, impoverishment of the middle class and cuts in social protection.

Added to this is the fear of losing employment and the standard of living of those who have not yet fallen into precariousness. Its voters are workers, wage earners, self-employed, merchants, petty bourgeoisie, farmers and artisans, say experts Matthew Goodwin, Pippa Norris and Cas Mudde.

The social unrest is the result of the effects accumulated by the turn of the late 1970s with neoliberal economic policy to restore the high rates of return on capital lost since the crisis of 1973 and which meant the breakdown of the postwar social contract, as historians Tony Judt and Josep Fontana describe.

Neoliberal policy has been characterized by a drastic reduction of taxes on companies and people with higher incomes, the rise of indirect taxes for all, and globalization and deregulation at all costs – financial and economic liberalization, privatization of companies and public services and cuts in labor rights and social spending.

The corporate tax rate has fallen by more than 20 points in the EU since 1981 and the maximum rate of income has fallen by about 30 points since the late 1970s in the West.

These conditions coupled with the passivity with tax havens and the tax evasion of multinationals, has generated growing public deficit problems and has transformed the welfare state into the current State of Austerity.

Globalization and deregulation have allowed the financial sector, large corporations and the elite to escape the control of national governments, as they can relocate their factories and shift their profits and wealth to tax havens.

It is now the financial sector and big companies that dictate laws and budgets to governments and the EU through their lobbies, say sociologists Colin Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck.

In this post-democracy, the political class has lost credibility and is seen as a privileged group alien to the problems of the people and given to favoritism. This allows the right to present itself as an anti-establishment alternative.

The most affected are the Social Democrats, who assumed neo-liberal dogmas and whose voters feel betrayed, as professors Vivien Schmidt and Florian Schui point out.

While the Social Democrats insist on defending “official” economic policy, the right wing echoes social unrest and raises social measures and protects labor rights.

The National Front and the Freedom Party are already the main labor parties of France and Austria and the Danish People’s Party (DF) get more workers’ votes than the Social Democrats.

The Euroscepticism of voters is the fruit of the negative impact of labor reforms and the austerity policy dictated by Brussels and Berlin against the ideal of EU social justice and the loss of democratic control over economic policy.

This is designed and imposed by the technocrats of a European Commission with repeated and unpunished scandals within a normative framework that deprives of political autonomy to the national governments and parliaments. It is what the sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas denounced in ‘The Lure of Technocracy’.

Only 35% of Europeans see the EU as positive, which is exploited by the right with slogans such as “regain control” and “regain power” and the idea of national retreat in a world that must be ridden of Globalism.

The problems associated with immigration, which most parties deny, leaving the debate to right groups, and which have been exacerbated by the unresolved crisis of the refugees, is another factor that favours their electoral success.

The right also describes the need of the citizen who are economically weakened to cling to a security and identity, before the anguish that generates the precariousness of transforming a problem of inequality into a national-foreign conflict.

The failure of integration policies and the accumulation of cuts in social spending have also created a perception among many citizens that they must compete with immigrants for increasingly scarce resources in education, health, housing and social protection.

It has also negatively affected the use by businesses of immigrants from inside and outside the EU and the US and the contracting of works and services to companies located in the East, which pay their displaced employees the salary of the country of origin, to replace local labor or lower wages and labor conditions.

The development of a political Islamism in the EU, which militantly rejects European values, and the succession of attacks have been pointed out by the Right to encourage citizens’ to pay attention to their identities and to abandon the hoax called multiculturalism.

Although this Wahhabi-Salafist Islamic radicalization, funded by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, serves as an ideological breeding ground for European jihadists, parties, the Left has been passive before it in order not to be labeled as islamophobic, which has left Right groups with almost the monopoly of the debate, as sociologist Gilles Kepel points out.

The EU and its governments have helped make right groups and parties legitimate by accepting government coalitions in Austria, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) with Christian Democrats, and in Italy by Silvio Berlusconi with National Alliance and the Northern League.

The Social-Democratic Government of Slovakia has a representative of the Slovak National Party (SNS). The Danish Government depends on the parliamentary support of the Danish People’s Party (DF), and in Holland, Austria and France the power of the Right conditions the national political agenda.

Nationalism both in Europe and North America has certainly awaken. The question is whether it happened too late, or if Nation-States still have the power in their hands to deny the globalists their dream to control it all.

Globalists declare war: European Union boss threatens to help break up the United States

"Jaw-dropping" direct threat against the country

(INTELLIHUB) — European Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker has issued a stunning threat against the very well-being of the country, threatening to help break up the United States as revenge for President Trump supporting Brexit.

Speaking to the EU Commission, Juncker effectively declared war against the United States, openly admitting that he would push for both Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of the country unless Trump changes his tune and becomes more supportive of the globalist EU.

That’s right. We are now seeing the head of the European Union openly admit that the globalist power structure plans to hurt the United States in response to measures that Donald Trump has taken to strike back against the world power elite, including the utter destruction of the TPP.

“Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same,” Juncker said.

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.”

The statements by Juncker should make it clear that the globalist power structure absolutely detests President Donald Trump and are now willing to strike at the very fabric of the country in response.

Populist politician and leading Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage took Juncker to task over his startling comments, noting that the un-elected bureaucrat clearly doesn’t understand the difference between the globalist European Union and the United States of America.

“Juncker has made a complete fool of himself,” Farage said in a press release. “He clearly does not understand the difference between the EU and the United States of America. One was formed by consent while the other is being imposed.”

“If this is what Juncker calls diplomacy, he needs to take a long hard look at himself,” Farage continued.

Amazingly, the American mainstream media has largely ignored these stunning threats, instead focusing on even more leaks from the deep state intended to hurt Trump. In other words, the mainstream media is largely working on the same side as the globalist EU at a time when the country is now openly being threatened.

Alex Thomas is an opinion journalist and editor for Intellihub News. He was a founding member of what later became Intellihub.com and an integral part of the team that destroyed the mainstream media blockade on Bilderberg in 2012. You can contact him here.

Featured Image: MPD01605/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

#Nexit? Northern Ireland May Leave the U.K. After Brexit, Elections

(ANTIMEDIA) Northern Ireland is the closest it’s been to leaving the United Kingdom in two decades after recent elections only increased animosity between its two major parties. The rising tensions come amid Brexit taking effect and a push for Scottish independence.

Assembly elections last Thursday left just a sliver of difference between the seats carried by Northern Ireland’s two largest political parties, setting the stage for another election to possibly be announced in the coming weeks. It would be the third election in the region in a year.

We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

At the heart of this division is the controversial matter of Irish independence from the U.K., but more recent global developments have compounded the issue. First, let’s examine was led to Thursday’s elections.

In 1998, following three decades of sectarian fighting, a compromise on political control of Northern Ireland was finalized. The Good Friday Agreement required cooperation between the U.K. unionists of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Irish republicans of Sinn Féin. Each party would hold either the position of first minister or deputy first minister, and neither office would be able to govern without the consent of the other.

That system broke down in January of this year, when Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of Sinn Féin, retired after citing health reasons, The Atlantic reported. His party, the second-largest, never chose a replacement, which prompted the elections held on Thursday. It turned out to be a good strategy, as the DUP leader was mired in scandal. DUP picked up one more seat than Sinn Féin, but not enough to maintain any veto power, which was a major boost for the republicans.

Back in 2012, when she was a minister of enterprise, trade, and investment, DUP leader and Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster helped initiate a program that subsidized renewable energy to heat people’s homes. Taxpayers ended up footing a nearly £500 million bill (about U.S. $609 million ) when they were promised only £25 million would be spent within a five-year period.

Whistleblowers spurred investigations into the program in February 2016, and in December, another whistleblower accused Foster of ignoring the cost overruns when they became apparent. Ten days later, Sinn Féin’s First Minister McGuinness demanded Foster step aside. She refused, and by January 2017, McGuinness had retired, forcing new elections.

Now, Northern Ireland has less than three weeks to form a new power-sharing government. If the elected Sinn Féin and DUP officials fail to come to an agreement, the reign over the region will default to London, or new elections could be called for once again.

The issues to be settled include how Brexit will be managed. The republicans were firmly anti-Brexit, or pro-remain, while the unionists were adamantly in favor of leaving the European Union. As Ireland has trading partners that remain in the E.U. and shares a border with Northern Ireland, the republicans want an exemption. They fear the Brexit fallout will cut off their free flow of goods and people over the border, an existential threat to their desire for unity with Ireland.

Sinn Féin may still be the second-largest political party in Northern Ireland, but it was only 1,200 votes away from overtaking the DUP last Thursday. Voter turnout increased Thursday, as well, so it is not far-fetched to anticipate a repeat surge if another election is soon announced, Reuters reported.

Northern Ireland is the poorest region of the U.K., and it benefits greatly from E.U. subsidies, including receiving £320 million (about $390 million in USD) in 2015. Eighty-seven percent of its farmers’ average incomes come from Brussels, according to the Financial Times. The region voted 56 percent against Brexit, and if its Scottish neighbors further pursue their own independence, Irish republicans may well push that much harder against London.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo / Image: Palomca