Harbingers of the Next World War

Harbingers of the Next World War
By Erick San Juan

The financial crash is on. Like what I have been telling everyone through my writings and radio commentary that if the 'program' is on, it can be delayed but it will push through whether we like it or not.

According to EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) News Service dated December 14 —The entire trans-Atlantic London-Wall Street financial system is on the very edge of total collapse. It could happen any hour, any day. The critical signs are already there, for anyone who is not wilfully blind. Four Italian banks have gone under in the past week, with the European Union imposing bail-in looting of depositor’s funds. Puerto Rico has already announced it will likely default on a $1 billion debt payment by Jan. 1, the front end of a $72 billion debt bubble; and 'vulture' funds are fully exposed. Already, a number of hedge funds, exposed to the Puerto Rican debt and to the shale oil and gas sector bankruptcies, have collapsed. These are merely harbingers of a total breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system that is imminent.

"The crisis is compounded by the imminent danger of world war, triggered by London and Wall Street desperation over their possible bankruptcy. NATO and the Obama Administration have done everything possible to provoke Russia, from the eastward expansion of NATO to the deployment of a unilateral ballistic missile defense system on the borders of Russia, to the modernization of tactical nuclear weapons to soon be deployed throughout Eastern Europe. Russian Armed Forces Chief of the General Staff Gen. Valeriy Gerasimov briefed foreign military attachés in Moscow this week on the added threat of NATO’s plans for asymmetric warfare aimed at regime change in Moscow. Under President Vladimir Putin’s clear leadership, Russia will not capitulate to the threats from the likes of President Obama and UK's Prime Minister Cameron. The danger of a thermonuclear war of extinction is greater today than at the height of the Cold War at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is driven, purely, by the bankruptcy of Wall Street and London.”

The destabilization ops from Europe to Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region are signs that the globalists wanted to start a war with Russia and China. The encirclement of the two countries through regional conflicts with the help of some allies have gradually gained momentum since the talks of an impending economic collapse.

In the midst of all these, our country plays a major role as we are situated strategically in this part of the region but unfortunately, a battleground to the next war if we will allow our territory to be used by war mongers.

If there are some flashpoints in the Middle East, some parts of Europe and Africa, we also have several flashpoints here in Asia. If we are going to talk about areas of concern for China and its neighbor, we have them here. Actually China is ‘fighting’ so many fronts, so to speak, due to territorial claims, and any miscalculation might lead to disaster.

“China makes its deliberate ambiguity more dangerous in its apparent commitment to defend undefined claims by force. Beijing’s 2015 defense white paper states that one objective of its military is to “safeguard” the country’s “maritime rights and interests” in a situation where “some of its offshore neighbors take provocative actions and reinforce their military presence on China’s reefs and islands that they have illegally occupied.” Hawkish military leaders give more reason for concern. Retired Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan has stated, for example, that if China is biding its time, its military should at least be ready to defend Chinese interests in the event of war.

Since China’s maritime claims are not clarified, it is impossible for others to determine where and when China is willing to use force, thus increasing the chance of conflict. The majority of small and middle powers in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore, react to an uncertain security environment by hedging. They seek to accommodate China’s growing influence primarily by establishing closer economic ties with Beijing while at the same time strengthening defense cooperation with Washington. Their priority is not to be seen as choosing sides in the ongoing China-U.S. strategic competition.

China’s policy of ambiguity leads to one conclusion, Beijing wants to expand its military presence in the South China Sea as a direct challenge to the U.S. alliance system because to do so would allow China to interfere with the free movement of military vessels and aircraft. Translation-  "look for an enemy to unite their nationals and delay the economic and political in-fighting from within."

American leaders cannot afford to sit back and do nothing. Washington needs to show that international waters cannot be turned into special zones with restrictions on other nations.

China’s behavior suggests that it see the American presence as a threat. If Beijing wishes to lower tensions, it should, as a starting point to negotiations, reassure Washington that it accepts the United States as part of Asia’s future. This requires avoiding changing the status quo in ways that ratchet up tensions.

"Sending warships to oppose American display of the freedom of navigation without explaining which legal principles Washington has violated is not a good start.” (China’s Dangerous Ambiguity in the South China Sea by Liselotte Odgaard, 12/10/15)

Yes, this ambiguity complicate matters and add to the possibilities of a regional conflict if not handled carefully by stakeholders to the disputed territories.

From economics to national security of nations involved and the next geopolitical move, are we all heading towards the next world war? As in war during Christmas and holiday season? God forbid!

 

Terrorism in Disguise by Erick San Juan

Terrorism in Disguise by Erick San Juan


Since 9/11 (September 11, 2001) the global war on terror (GWOT) has dragged all nations to a new kind of war. A special coalition was formed through the initiative of the former US President George Bush, Jr. The coalition of the willing to get rid of the terror network of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida terror group.

From the so-called death of bin Laden to the different terror group springing from the original Al-Qaeda terror network, leaders of different countries have invested in various forms of protection especially in their airports and sea ports in order to secure their territories from terrorists.

In the span of fourteen years, several terror attacks or other similar attacks being associated to terrorists were the new normal. Almost every year ‘a terror attack’ happens and the culprit/s were associated with the Al-Qaeda terror network or a new group of terrorists.

The strategy of fear among the populace was successfully maintained and the threat of another terror attack created a new kind of tension that justified the government’s move to create laws that limited every citizen’s freedom. All in the name of national security.

But the nagging question remains, are these terrorists for real? Who benefits from every act of terror against civilians? Who are the sponsors behind these terrorists?

Unfortunately as long as state-sponsored terrorists can freely roam and do their terror acts, and through corporate-backed media group that helps in fanning the faked stories of terrorism, fear and tension will remain as part of our daily lives.

The mere fact that terrorism is here to stay in whatever form, leaders and would-be leaders of countries seeking peace will have to think twice of providing security to its citizenry.

That is why the article of David Stokes - It’s National Security, Stupid (12/11/2015) cited the importance of having in mind the national security of one’s nation especially those who are running for national office.

Come 2016, the US will have its national elections (like in the Philippines) and Stokes wrote his observation and analysis – “One thing is clear as we watch candidates from both major political parties scramble for the presidential prize in 2016—the stakes are very high. And national security issues are finally getting the kind of attention they always warrant in this dangerous world.

Many candidates for the highest office in the land—and most of those who make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—tend to prefer talking about their “domestic vision.”  Bill Clinton’s mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid,” comes to mind. But they eventually find themselves facing issues of war and national security, whether they like it or not.

It’s just a guess, but I don’t think President Obama likes talking about the bad guys who are after us. I’m pretty sure he’d rather change the subject and talk about climate change.”

Stakes also mentioned the book “1932: The Rise of Hitler and FDR—Two Tales of Politics, Betrayal, and Unlikely Destiny” by David Pietrusza, historian. He writes – “Mr. Pietrusza has done a masterful job bringing a vital era and several dynamic personalities to life.  The Great Depression was in full bust, and deprivation was giving way to desperation in some quarters.  It is one of the odd convergences in history that Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler came to power within weeks of each other, and then also died within weeks of each other.

The two men were, of course, very different from each other. One was born to wealth, the other to meager means.  One lived a charmed life, for the most part. The other man barely managed to crawl on his belly from failure to failure. One man faced a dreadful disease that served to strengthen his character. The other battled diseases of the imagination that poisoned his. But both men managed to climb their respective political ladders to the top.  Each leader superimposed a sweeping societal vision.

One man used hope—the other used hate.

David Pietrusza’s book is a must read for all political animals during this political season. If only for the fact that while Franklin Roosevelt and the nation wrestled with political and social solutions to the great domestic problems of the day, Adolf Hitler was already planting the seeds of aggression and conflict that would wreak havoc on the world.

Clinton was wrong back in 1992. It’s national security, stupid.  It always has been and always will be.”

Especially here in our country when every time a new terrorist group emerges, the international community always tag us as the training ground for this group particularly in the south. They conveniently used the southern part of the country as haven for training of terrorists because of its strategic location (even though the US special forces are stationed there).

The political bickering of the country’s presidentiables (and other political wannabes) that had bombarded us day in and day out should be mature enough to discuss current issues as important as national security instead. Whether we like it or not, our archipelago is in danger from domestic and foreign threat that should be addressed with concrete plan of action and not just asking the Big Brother’s help.

At the end of the day, it still is the national security, stupid!

War by Design by Erick San Juan

What really happened in November 24 over the Syrian-Turkish border? What version credible enough to believe – Moscow or Ankara? What occurred then does not fit the usual line … and the rest is history… The shooting down of the Russian bomber by Turkey could just be the beginning of another mistake by humanity – a prelude to world war. Is history repeating itself? Or people repeating history?

Not so long ago, in September 11, 2001 through the leadership of former US President George W. Bush jr, the global war on terror (GWOT) started after the terror attack at the World Trade Center in New York. Bush said the famous line ‘you’re either with us or against us’ in the fight against terrorism.  And the bogeyman at that time was Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror group.

After almost two weeks now, the Russians’ effort to stop the terror group ISIS/ISIL by bombing Syria was somehow aborted by Turkey, by shooting down the Russian bomber. And so the question – is Turkey against Russia in its effort in fighting the terror network ISIS/ISIL?

In his article Stumbling to War with Russia? by Pat Buchanan (posted at townhall.com Nov. 27, 2015) – “Turkey's decision to shoot down a Russian warplane was a provocative and portentous act."

"That Sukhoi Su-24, which the Turks say intruded into their air space, crashed and burned -- in Syria. One of the Russian pilots was executed while parachuting to safety. A Russian rescue helicopter was destroyed by rebels using a U.S. TOW missile. A Russian marine was killed."

"A stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists," said Vladimir Putin of the first downing of a Russian warplane by a NATO nation in half a century. Putin has a point, as the Russians are bombing rebels in northwest Syria, some of which are linked to al-Qaida.
Security analysts believe that it is impossible to believe Turkish F-16 pilots would fire missiles at a Russian plane without authorization from President Tayyip Recep Erdogan. We must ask: Why did the Turkish autocrat ok'd it?

Why is he risking a clash with Russia?

Answer: Erdogan is probably less outraged by intrusions into his air space than by Putin's success in securing the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, whom Erdogan detests, and by relentless Russian air strikes on Turkmen rebels seeking to overthrow Assad.
Imperiled strategic goals and ethnicity may explain Erdogan. But what does the Turkish president see down at the end of this road?

And what about us? Was the U.S. government aware Turkey might attack Russian planes? Did we give Erdogan a green light to shoot them down?

These are not insignificant questions.

For Turkey is a NATO ally. And if Russia strikes back, there is a possibility Ankara will invoke Article V of NATO and demand that we come in on their side in any fight with Russia.
And Putin was not at all cowed. Twenty-four hours after that plane went down, his planes, ships and artillery were firing on those same Turkmen rebels and their jihadist allies.
Politically, the Turkish attack on the Sukhoi Su-24 has probably aborted the plan to have Russia join France and the U.S. in targeting ISIS, a diplomatic reversal of the first order.
When provocation and miscalculation happen in a region where tension is very high, retaliation will occur and might lead to a regional conflict and maybe a war on a global scale.
“President Vladimir Putin said Turkey's shooting down of a Russian military jet was a war crime and that the Kremlin would punish Ankara with additional sanctions, signalling fallout from the incident would be long-lasting and serious.

Putin, who made the comments during his annual state of the nation speech to his country's political elite on Thursday, said, Russia would not forget the Nov. 24 incident and that he continued to regard it as a terrible betrayal.

"We are not planning to engage in military sabre-rattling (with Turkey)," said Putin.
"But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime, the murder of our people, that they are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken."

"Turkey would have cause to regret its actions more than once, he said, promising Russia's retaliatory actions would be neither hysterical nor dangerous.”

Leaders around the world are saying their piece towards peace and probably de-escalation of tensions between Turkey and Russia and one of them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a prominent geopolitical strategist and a former US National security advisor.

"Putin blew out some steam but subsequently began to talk about coping with the problem. The Turks proved to be resilient and tough but without exaggerating the collision. … So in effect the parties to this unfolding drama have become more reasonable," Brzezinski observed. "But I think it was quite lucky the shoot-down in Turkey was not done by us."
The Cold War hawk is also quite optimistic when it comes to relations between Washington and Moscow, which many describe as no less than the second installment of the Cold War. These tensions, according to him, are "serious but not fatal."

"I may be naïve but I think this is one of those situations in which the stakes are not that dramatic," Brzezinski noted.

In fact, the analyst believes that major powers could well move beyond the Su-24 incident, put aside their differences and focus instead on finding a solution to the Syrian conflict since they have a shared interest in regional stability and would prefer to avoid confrontation in other areas.

"In effect, we might be on the brink of some progress among the major powers regarding not just the Turkish-Russian skirmish, but towards some salutary accommodation regarding containment of wider regional violence," Brzezinski noted. (http://sputniknews.com/politics)

For whatever its worth, regional tensions are building up but cooler heads will always be around to neutralize tensions and work out their differences. May God guide all world leaders to value human lives and to do their best to avoid wars by design.

Climate Change Myth by Erick San Juan

Climate Change Myth by Erick San Juan


Nearly 150 world leaders gathered in Paris, France for COP21 – Conference of the Parties on its 21st year since it started in April 1995 in Berlin, Germany. World leaders and thousands of delegates including Philippine president BS Aquino III will talk about climate change, carbon emissions and greenhouse effects for almost two weeks, reports said.

There is nothing worthy to talk about this year’s climate change summit except the venue. Unfortunately, COP21 pushed through even after the terror attack that sent fear throughout France and some other key cities of the world.

World leaders showed solidarity with France and went on with COP21. But still the perennial question is (after two decades), what are the accomplishments of COP21?

Annually, more people are getting skeptical about this climate change summit, the perception is it’s all diplomatic rhetoric. There was a time that evidence of tampered data regarding global warming was exposed. Connivance of the so-called scientists were put into the limelight due to false entries of data in order to make the world believe that there is global warming happening.

Another strategy of fear? So, why spend so much time and money in this so-called meeting when there are more pressing problems confronting the world? Why spend just to allegedly fool the world and come out with story-telling a lie that the icebergs are melting fast and polar bears are dying?

Pundits believe that the United Nations should stop this foolishness and face the truth that what is happening at this conference are all lies and a big BS!

The big question always centered on the carbon emissions by countries especially the big ones like China and the US. No one can measure exactly how much reduction in greenhouse gases that each nation has recorded. It’s like nuclear arms, not one country will report the exact number of nuclear heads they have.

“Other countries have submitted their own hollow commitments to the U.N. as well. Russia based its emission reduction goals on outdated numbers that allow the country to increase its emission over the next decade. China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, which accounts for 30% of the world's emissions now and 50% of estimated growth by 2030, will only commit to emissions peaking about 15 years from now -- and won't even say what that peak will be. India's willingness to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contingent on developed countries' funding.  According to India, all it needs is about $2.5 trillion for its plan, with an off-ramp in the event it interferes with economic growth.

Basic requirements, such as measuring, verifying, and reporting a country's emissions, are also problematic. The Chinese government was recently exposed as having under reported the amount of coal it burns and failing to account for more than a billion tons of carbon dioxide.

These realities are a mere reflection of the fact that -- diplomatic rhetoric aside -- no nation will ever prioritize emission reduction promises over poverty eradication and economic growth.” (Beware of empty climate promises by Jim Inhofe, Nov. 30, 2015)

The UN together with its members are talking about this for two decades already and why are there no concrete solutions to this so-called climate change? The truth of the matter is – this world body is not addressing the real culprit of this problem they are talking about. Yes it is man-made, not the carbon emissions but the weather engineering or weather modification through chemtrails.

This is not new and not confidential because through the internet, one can find a lot of materials and data which shows how weather manipulation (engineering) can alter the world’s storms, snow, heat and other weather disturbances.

And one would wonder why tamper with nature? Why science and technology will go as far as this tinkering with Mother Nature? It is all because these evil-minded scientists backed by the globalists agenda to depopulate the world and murder what they call ‘useless eaters’.

Not one COP summit or UN-sponsored meeting addressed the issue on weather engineering and how one can actually alter the earth’s atmosphere just to create disastrous hurricane, super typhoons and even earthquakes.

Until world leaders recognize this depopulation tool to eliminate large number of the world’s population, all their efforts would be in vain.