USA, THE RUSSIANS, UKRAINE, THE NEOCONS & WWIII
Understanding the Ukrainian Conflict and the Significance of the Neoconservatives
I remember well the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24th February 2022. I had noted that just a few weeks earlier on 4th February 2022, at a meeting between President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, it had been announced that friendship between Russia and China “has no limits”. Given the great care in the use of language by the Chinese, I thought that this statement was very significant. Similar sentiments have been recently conveyed in a meeting between the two leaders in Beijing in May 2024, although the term “no limits” was not used. However, China and Russia stated that they were aligned on many issues including: “energy, trade, security, and geopolitics with specific references to Ukraine, Taiwan and conflict in the Middle East.” There’s not much left!
It is clear that the West had, perhaps unwittingly, created a strong and formidable alliance between two of the key BRICS nations. And now Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin have become “besties”. North Korea has declared “full support for the Russian war in Ukraine”, and the bond between the two countries was described as a “strong strategic fortress and an engine for defending international justice, peace and security.” Sounds like the UN!
Since the heady days of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, much has changed in the nature of geopolitical alliances.
While the Russian invasion of Ukraine was of great geopolitical significance, what was notable was the way that this Russian invasion “cured” COVID-19. COVID-19 fear had dominated the media for the previous two years, but suddenly, after 24 February 2022, COVID-19 was gone. Lockdowns were ended and fear about COVID-19 evaporated.
Suddenly, there was no mention of COVID-19 in the media, and all we heard about was the evil Vladimir Putin and the fact that we were facing a “Munich moment” (referring to Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” meeting with Hitler in September 1938). The elimination of COVID-19 as a front-page “crisis” could make you think (if you were a conspiracy theorist) that this contrived “pandemic” had now been replaced with a contrived war. Of course, this couldn’t be the case!
As with all major events where the media narrative is consistent, e.g., “Safe and Effective,” “Build Back Better”, I was immediately suspicious of the sudden proliferation of “I stand with Ukraine” hashtags and the posting of yellow and blue Ukrainian flags on people’s social media accounts. I wondered if there was something more about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, of which I was unaware.
I knew that President Putin was a tough guy, and if you get close to him, it is wise to stay away from tall buildings. However, I had heard enough even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine to know a few key facts that could impinge on the 2022 decision for Russian to invade Ukraine:
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Soviet leaders were assured that the West had no designs on the new Russian Federation. The US Secretary of State, James Baker, provided an assurance to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO had no expansionist designs. Declassified documents from the National Security Archive at George Washington University demonstrated the following:
”U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991”.Despite these assurances, NATO continued to expand eastwards, and there were discussions about Ukraine joining NATO.
The US, specifically via the CIA, and the European Union were involved in fomenting the overthrow of the pro-Russian Ukrainian President, Victor Yanukovych, in February 2014. Hub Pages – reported in 2021 that:
“….the U.S.A. conducted all the planning regarding this overthrowing. U.S politicians facilitated most of the funding in the Ukrainian protests. Moreover, the U.S state department handpicked and installed new politicians in the country at the expense of what democracy or political stability. ……. Upon the overthrowing of Ukrainian government, there was much celebration in U.S media and political circles. Majority of people in U.S hailed these as a putsch while ignoring the fact that the neo-nazi militias instigated the instability….”
Yanukovych was seen as being too close to Moscow and so a revolution was engineered by the US State Department and CIA. This is now widely acknowledged by most political commentators.
These two pieces of information made me suspicious that there was more to the invasion than “the evil dictator Putin” marching into a country and trying to take control.
Since then, I have attempted to find many different sources of information on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, but it is difficult to navigate competing propaganda. The issue has been presented as black and white: evil Putin v the righteous West.
It also was confusing that the Left and Right sides of politics seemed, in the main, to have found agreement. The outcome was pouring hundreds of billions of dollars of aid and weapons into Ukraine. The West appeared content to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood, and it is now estimated that 500,000 Ukrainians have died in the conflict.
President Zelensky, a former comedian, perfected an art form of emotionally manipulative video presentations to many Western countries. He found historical connections to events in the history of each country’s parliamentarians/congress and then argued for a blank cheque for Ukraine. He always appeared in green battle dress, despite him going nowhere near the frontlines of fighting.
His performances were effective because large sums of money and equipment have been transferred to Ukraine without any effective audit. It seems likely (given the widespread acknowlegement of the corruption in Ukraine) that various Ukrainian leaders’ bank accounts in the Cayman Islands have grown significantly.
Sometime last year, I heard a useful analogy for the position that Russia faced with the expansion of NATO eastwards. What would happen if China decided to put various military bases along the US-Mexican border because of a military agreement with Mexico? Would the US simply look the other way? Of course they wouldn’t.
As I considered the issue further, it did appear that key players in the West had orchestrated the conflict by provoking Russia and threatening the country along its 2,100km border with Ukraine. Now, further provocation is being made by stealing Russian assets (US$50 billion) held in the form of Treasury securities. It’s hard to see the Russians simply turning the other cheek.
Cleverly, Vladimir Putin had been set up as an evil, antichrist-type figure and even during 2015-16 US presidential election campaign, the Democrats in the US had attempted via a fake dossier, to link Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin.
Putting the pieces together, it seemed as though there had been a long-term strategy by the US to provoke Putin into war by depicting him as an enemy of freedom. It brought to mind the famous farewell speech by President Eisenhower on 17th January 1961, highlighting the dangers of a “military-industrial complex”. This trillion-dollar operation, which is at the heart of the US government, involves all the major defense contractors, and of course, it is in their interests for the US to be involved in wars around the globe. Since George W. Bush’s “war on terror”, more than US$7 trillion has been spent on various conflicts with the main outcome being international destabilization.
In the case of Russia, the overarching concern is that as the West continues to prod Putin, supplying increasingly sophisticated weapons and “advisors” to Ukraine, a nuclear response is a real possibility. Russia has almost 6,000 nuclear weapons and various Russian spokesmen have made hints that they may need to “go nuclear”.
President Putin gave a long speech last week at Russia’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs where he prefaced his speech with the fact that: “fateful events have occurred both in our country and in the world”. He drew attention to the importance of the BRICS nations, which Russia chairs this year. A key point that he made in the speech was:
“We are interested in ensuring that this dialogue develops seriously within the UN walls as well, including on such a fundamental, vital issue for all as the creation of a system of indivisible security. In other words, asserting in world affairs the principle that the security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others.”
In essence, Putin was highlighting his view that the West sees its dominance and security as more important than those of nations such as those in the BRICS grouping. He finishes his speech with a focus on what is necessary for peace in Ukraine. He said:
“I repeat: our principled position is as follows – neutral, non-aligned, non-nuclear status of Ukraine, its demilitarization and denazification,….”.
It is worthwhile reading the speech because it is well thought out and helps understand the Russian perspective. It is particularly interesting when you gain further context by listening to Professor Jeffrey Sachs’s interview with Tucker Carlson from a few weeks ago.
Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs
All the various pieces of the West v Russia, fell into place this week when I listened to a 2.5h interview where Tucker Carlson interviewed Professor Jeffrey Sachs. The interview is titled: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin. The interview was posted on 29th May 2024.
It is well worth spending the 2.5 hours to listen to the entire interview because Professor Sachs has been well-connected and even on the front lines of negotiations between East and West. He knows all the key players and provides a big-picture view that is very helpful for understanding the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and even the origins of COVID-19.
Professor Sachs is a well-respected Harvard-trained economist who has strong links to the UN and the globalists (which make his insights even more relevant). His website states:
“Sachs is widely recognized for bold and effective strategies to address complex challenges including the escape from extreme poverty, the global battle against human-induced climate change, international debt and financial crises, national economic reforms, and the control of pandemic and epidemic diseases.
Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he holds the rank of University Professor, the university’s highest academic rank. Sachs was Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University from 2002 to 2016. He is President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Co-Chair of the Council of Engineers for the Energy Transition, academician of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican, Commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development, Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah Honorary Distinguished Professor at Sunway University, and SDG Advocate for UN Secretary General António Guterres. From 2001-18, Sachs served as Special Advisor to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and António Guterres (2017-18).”
He has written many books related to economic development and sustainability. Sachs was the 2022 recipient of the Tang Prize for Sustainable Development and you would think he would be in alignment with those seeking to take Putin and Russia down. However, despite being a globalist, his fear is that the current trajectory could lead us into nuclear conflict with Russia and the resulting threat to all humanity.
The Role of the “Neocons” and Dominance of US Foreign Policy
Professor Sachs thesis (and he was at the front lines of negotiations between East and West at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and then ongoing roles in economic development of former Warsaw Pact countries), is that U.S. foreign policy has become dominated by the neoconservatives or “neocons”. You will hear this term thrown about often in the media, and I have done some research to try to give my readers the best definition. This is the definition provided by Oxford Reference and I found this the best and clearest explanation:
“Neoconservatism first emerged in the 1970s and is distinguished from other strands of conservatism by its approach to foreign policy, which holds that security is best attained by using US power to spread freedom and democracy, if necessary by force and without international cooperation.”
Jeffrey Sachs contends that the “neocons” have directed US foreign policy for the past 30 years in both Democratic and Republican administrations and relentlessly promoted the spread of US power while supported by CIA clandestine operations. The power is amplified by the presence of around 750 military bases in more than 80 countries.
The “neoncons” strategy was outlined in an important document: Project for the New American Century: Rebuilding America’s Defenses, published in September 2000. The main idea (as stated in the document) was:
“This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces. Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals.”
The document promotes “four core missions for US military forces”:
defend the American homeland;
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”.
You can see that the US’s enemies (and likely some of its friends) may not have been very excited about the US and its military in charge of the world to make and break regimes that it believed were central to, or in opposition to, its interests.
The History of the West’s US-led Campaign Against Russia
The US strategy of geopolitical and military dominance, pursued over the past 30 years, has been founded on the ideas outlined in the Project for the New American Century. In effect, various Western powers (notably Germany and the UK) are little more than vassal states.
Sachs unequivocally states that the US blew up the Nordstream pipeline, a story that was reported last year by the famous US journalist Seymour Hersh. Hersh reported: “President Joe Biden’s decision in the fall of 2022 to send a signal of resolve to Vladimir Putin by destroying Nord Stream 1 and 2, the Russian natural gas pipelines. Nord Stream 1 had turned Germany into the most powerful economic force in Western Europe.”
The mainstream media covered up the US attack on Nordsteam and even reported that the Russians blew it up! This was one of a number of events that sought to provoke the Russians and isolate them economically.
Sachs makes the argument that rather than seeking cooperation with the reconstituted Russian nation after the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, the US implemented a plan developed by the influential Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 titled A Geostrategy for Eurasia. This strategy involved the progressive recruitment of former Soviet-bloc countries into NATO, concluding with Ukraine.
Sachs points out that this strategy was originally a British one, articulated by Lord Palmerston in the 19th century, where if Russia no longer had access to ports in the Black Sea, it would no longer be a great power. This was one of the factors that led to the Crimean War (1853-56).
The “neocons” that controlled US administrations from the late 1990s until today (and include unlikely characters such as Hilary Clinton) had the aim of asserting US hegemony internationally. This involved enrolling Eastern European countries in NATO, which gradually led eastward until Ukraine was the “final frontier” because of its 2100 km border with Russia.
Sachs explained that the US strategy was: “our way to basically dominate Eurasia. If we can dominate the Black Sea region then Russia's nothing. If we make Russia nothing, then we can basically control Eurasia; meaning all the way from Europe to Central Asia. And through our influence in East Asia do the same thing and that's American unipolarity. We run the world, we are the hegemon, we are the sole superpower, we are unchallenged.”
The Russians said:
“..please don't do that; don't bring your troops, your weapons, your missiles right up to our border. It's not a good idea”.
Nonetheless, NATO kept recruiting the former Soviet-bloc countries into NATO and to surround Russia. Putin provided a warning at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Sachs summarized Putin’s message as follows:
“…gentlemen, you told us in 1990 NATO would never enlarge. That was the promise made to President Gorbachev and it was the promise made to President Yeltsin; and you cheated and you repeatedly cheated and you don't even admit that you said this but it's all plainly documented…. he (Putin) says stop don't even think about Ukraine this is our 2,100 kilometre border. This is absolutely part of the integrated economy of this region..”
Despite the warning, the US and allies continued to expand NATO and engineered a coup in 2013-2014 against the democratically elected, pro-Russian Ukrainian President Yanukovych. Sachs says:
“…the US conspired with the Ukrainian right to overthrow Yanukovich and there was a violent overthrow in the third week of February of 2014. That's when this war started. This war (current Russia v Ukraine) didn't even start in 2022. It started in 2014 - that was the outbreak of the war; it was a violent coup that overthrew a Ukrainian president who wanted neutrality when he was violently overthrown”.
I have attempted to summarize the points made by Professor Sachs in the diagram below.
Figure 1. Simplified diagram of the circumstances that led to the “unprovoked” attack on Ukraine by Russia (Sachs, 2024)
The overarching point made by Jeffrey Sachs and Tucker Carlson is that when you hear the term “unprovoked” repeatedly used about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you need to understand the context, the previous commitments given by the US and the “neocons” policy of US domination.
The result is global instability and new global alignments, including Russia, China and North Korea.
Some Conclusions
Professor Sachs makes the following assessment of the dangers of the US expansionist strategy:
“….you better be worried. We're talking about a counterpart that has 6,000 nuclear warheads. We have 6,000 nuclear warheads. We have a lot of crazy people in our government. I know it, I'm an adult enough to know over 44 years of professional life that there are a lot of intemperate people in our country. We have a lot of allies that say :“oh, we can do this”; we have a president of Latvia tweeting or Xing .. ‘Russia Delenda Est”’. In other words, Russia must be destroyed - playing off of the old Cato the Elder “Carthago Delenda Est “- Carthage must be destroyed. Honestly, a president of a Baltic state tweeting that Russia must be destroyed. This is prudent? This is safe? This is going to keep your family, my family safe? Are we out of our minds?
And all through this, Biden hasn't called Putin one time …. the United States says, ‘We won't do anything that the Ukrainians don't want’. This is insane by the way. As if this is really between Ukraine and Russia. This is about the United States and Russia. Everybody should understand this isn't even about Ukraine and Russia. … I don't like my family being at risk of nuclear war.”
Professor Sach’s contends that the ideas contained in the Project for the New American Century: Rebuilding America’s Defenses, published in September 2000, have led to the US (and covert CIA operatives) becoming enmeshed in range of conflicts that have caused greater international instability. These include: Serbia-Bosnia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. Despite Democratic and Republican administrations of various political persuasions being in power over the last 25 years, the “neoncons” and their philosophy of US dominance have steered the rudder of the State Department over this time. It may be that there are some that even want to provoke a nuclear conflict.
The big picture is that this is a dangerous game of “chicken” being played by various Deep State actors within the US administration. It is very clear that whatever the Ukraine conflict is about, it was not “unprovoked”.
Thus, it is likely that Donald Trump (who has promoted a policy of ending the Ukraine conflict) cannot be allowed to come to power. Who knows the tricks the Deep State and the CIA have up its sleeves?
Many in the current Biden administration and the Deep State have much to lose if the lid is lifted on Ukraine and the role of various corrupt players, including Hunter Biden. The West (led by the US), having gone “all in for Ukraine” cannot afford a peace deal and so the risks of the extension of the war and the threat of nuclear conflict have moved the famous Doomsday Clock, closer to midnight.
STORIES THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION THIS WEEK
"Don't Buy Into This Crap", Catherine Austin Fitts Warns: "AI Is Digital Control"
This is the headline of an article in ZeroHedge this last week. Catherine Austin Fitts (CAF) is a former Wall Street investment banker and Assistant Secretary of Housing in the Bush administration. She is now the President of Solari Inc and publishes a weekly newsletter. Tyler Durdan quotes from a new report titled “The AI Revolution״ written by CAF:
“This is a very serious look at Artificial Intelligence and how it’s going to be used to implement control..."
"This past week, there was this huge open board meeting at OpenAI. There were board members put there to make sure OpenAI and its products were in alignment with the best interests of the human race. Some of them got booted out. Now, we see the former head of the NSA (National Security Agency) get put on the board.
I just realized it today, and I had not realized it before.
Edward Snowden just tweeted out and said you should never use any of these products, which include ChatGPT. Snowden also said, ‘You have to understand where this is going. You have been warned.’
“The AI Revolution” also warns that:
AI “. . . will alter the prospects for a free society, even free will. . . and . . . attempt to seed the idea human-only decision-making will become a rarity and, in time, cease to exist.”
Don’t think sophisticated AI is some idea that is far into the future. AI is here now, and CAF points out:
“I just see more and more companies using this type of technology to institute financial fraud and make money from financial fraud in their pricing. . . . You also have thousands of companies to track you for their benefit...
It is trying to extract data from you to accomplish whatever its goal is. . . . It’s like a swarm of invisible locusts that are all trying to surveil and track, and none of them are trying to optimize your life and give you a free and inspired life.
They are just trying to get their piece.”
AI will also be used to ignore and break all laws. After all, it’s robotic and can’t be held accountable. CAF says,
“By removing moral obligations and legal and obedient respect for laws, the speed at which you can do evil is extraordinary...
One of my concerns, and I have said this for many years, I think this kind of technology allows interdimensional intelligence to act as material reality so that, literally, demonic intelligence can have far more influence and impact in our world.
It operates at such high speed, and then you combine that with the payment systems in the financial system. . . the things that can go wrong are phenomenal. One of the main problems that we have seen in the past year is artificial intelligence takes off on its own, and it starts functioning in a way it makes no sense. . . . and it’s just lying. It’s just making stuff up and lying.
It’s literally like it’s under demonic possession.”
It’s interesting to read the CAF believes that AI is literally “demonic possession”. We should be very circumspect in using AI and while its use is becoming ubiquitous, we must all realize that we are training a potential “alien system” to ultimately act against us.
What Was the Outcome of the WHO Meeting to Approve Health Regulations?
Many have seen the recent 77th World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva as a win for the anti-globalist forces. There was well-organized resistance to the extension of the WHO's powers in the event of another pandemic. However, the WHO bureaucrats are regrouping and are well prepared to finalize a treaty in 2025, according to a recent report.
World Affairs Brief stated recently:
“Leo Homann is blowing the whistle on the grand deception about the 77th World Health Assembly adopting the “substantial package of amendments” to the International Health Regulations.”
James Roguski, the foremost expert on the WHO negotiations of these amendments, stated, “We the People have suffered a stunning defeat. The battle continues... Unfortunately, this is an enormous loss for ‘We the People’ and a substantial victory for the evil forces that support the system of Big Pharma.
“The recently adopted amendments will facilitate an enormous global build up of the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex which seeks to trigger ongoing ‘pandemic emergencies’ that will be made even worse by ‘relevant health products.’”
Former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who has also closely followed the negotiating process at the WHO World Health Assembly, had this to say in an email alert this morning: They’ve given themselves power over a global digital ID and the power to mandate vaccines and enforce those mandates, specifically with regard to international travel.”
It is evident that the globalist forces are re-grouping and seeking more control over individual countries’ responses to lockdowns and vaccination. The WHO International Health Regulations are definitely a Trojan Horse that could be wheeled in by the WHO to force compliance with imposed global mandates.
The Ongoing COVID-19 Cover-up
Dr Anthony Fauci has been giving testimony this last week to the US Congress. House Judiciary Chairman, Jim Jordan, has criticized Fauci for “false testimony”. Fauci has taken every position under the sun:
“face masks are no good”, “face masks are essential”; “vaccines need a 5-10 year lead time”, “vaccines are safe and effective inside six months”; “the SARS-CoV-2 virus came from the Wuhan markets”, “the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have come from the Wuhan lab”; “the US never funded gain of function research”, “the US did fund important virus biological defense work”.
It’s remarkable that the media gives Fauci any credibility at all but he has been on a speaking tour around the left-wing television programs this week to promote his book. Fauci has great skills in producing a word fruit salad in response to questioning from congressional representatives and using obfuscation.
Fauci is important because most of the mainstream media took his word as the truth and censored alternative opinions during COVID-19. One of these “facts” was that if you took the mRNA vaccine, you couldn’t be infected and so couldn’t pass the infection on. This turned out to be completely false and there never was any data to support this contention.
World Affairs Brief has recently quoted 15 COVID-19 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true:
“#15 - Repeated COVID shots weaken the immune system, according to a study.
#14 - Ivermectin worked! Peer-reviewed study finds 74% reduction in excess deaths.
#13 - The unvaccinated were scapegoated for failure of COVID vaccines, study finds.
#12 - Mask wearers paradoxically had an increased risk of contracting COVID.
#11 - Natural immunity proves to be seven times more protective than vaccinated immunity.
#10 - Ivermectin, is now showing 15 anti-cancer mechanisms of action.
#9 - Hospitals murdered COVID patients. The more they killed, the more money they made.
#8 - Emails prove Biden White House hid COVID-19 vaccine harms from the public.
#7 - Mainstream puppets admit COVID came from a lab.
#6 - Nearly 1 in 3 COVID vaccine recipients suffered neurological side effects.
#5 - Research finds heart anomalies within 48 hours after the COVID-19 shot.
#4 - Pfizer hid nearly 80% of COVID-19 vaccine trial deaths from regulators
#3 - Perverse brainwashing techniques were thoroughly studied to get you jabbed.
#2 - The Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccine” injected into billions of arms was not the same one used in Pfizer’s clinical trials.
#1 - Florida’s Surgeon General has called for a halt to the use of all COVID-19 mRNA injections, citing safety concerns after the discovery of billions of DNA fragments per dose in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines.”
It is shocking that the adverse events to people’s health that resulted from the rushed and largely untested vaccines have been mostly ignored by the mainstream media. At least there are a number of books now that demonstrate clearly the excess deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines – see my post from 10th May this year.
The UK Election – The Nigel Farage Effect
The United Kingdom goes to the polls on 4th July. You wonder what Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was thinking when he sprang the surprising announcement on the Labour Opposition and also his own Party. The Conservatives were unprepared and Sunak destroyed his own campaign and credibility by leaving the Normandy D-Day 80th celebrations early, attracting universal condemnation.
Since then, despite Sir Keir Starmer the Labour Leader having had a charisma bypass, Labour are leading in the polls. Just when the Conservatives thought it couldn’t get any worse, Nigel Farage (the Brexit architect) entered the race as the leader of the Reform UK Party (slogan “Britain is Broken, Britain Needs Reform”). Initial polls have put Reform ahead of the Conservatives but because of the “first past the post” election system, this will not necessarily translate into parliamentary seats. However, Reform may gain up to nine seats on 4th July, including Nigel Farage’s election to the UK Parliament for the first time. However, the campaign still has two weeks left to run and there could be some surprises.
Reform is a conservative alternative to the “socialist conservatives”, which is really the only way of describing the UK Conservative Party. Despite being in power for 14 years, the UK Conservatives have drifted (or bolted) to the Left and have embraced a woke agenda, Big Government and High Taxation. They have legislated “net zero”, which will consign the UK to long-term energy disaster and have implemented the highest taxation in the last 50 years. The famed National Health Service is failing, with a blowout of waiting times and the Conservatives have been totally ineffective in controlling migration.
UK Labour is likely to have the biggest parliamentary majority in history. The Party intends to destroy private education and impose high wealth and property taxes, as well as death duties. Sir Keir Starmer has reiterated that he is a committed Socialist and wants Britain to become re-engaged with the European Union.
With the failure of the Conservatives and concerns about Labour, Nigel Farage has stepped up to the political plate. Reform UK has garnered support in the last few weeks and this week Politico reported:
“Things have gone from bad to worse for the Conservatives, with the model projecting the party’s lowest seat total in its history. Coming in at just 108 of the total 650 up for grabs, the party is 257 seats down on its triumph under Boris Johnson in 2019. Meanwhile, Reform U.K. makes its first appearance on the electoral map, projected to take five seats from the Conservatives, including the seaside town of Clacton where Farage is running.
On the upper end of the model’s confidence intervals, his party could even stand to win 17 seats.”
Nigel Farage is close to Donald Trump and also close to a number of the EU’s right-wing Euro MPs. His late entry into the UK political race has certainly shaken the Conservatives, which in recent opinion polls may win as few as 53 of the 650 parliamentary seats. It’s a long way from the triumph of Boris Johnson’s 365 Conservative seats in the UK Parliament after the 2019 election.
Things have been going downhill in the UK for many years and it is no wonder that there are reports that the “super rich are fleeing to shelter their money”. Labour will destroy the UK economy as they try to further embed socialism. The Party has no plans apart from spending more and taxing more. It is terrible to see a once-great country heading over the cliff.
France Moves to the Right and Macron Calls an Election
The European Union has an almost incomprehensible governing system and the EU leadership is essentially an unelected bureaucracy where deals are done behind closed doors. There is a European Council (the 27 national leaders - with a 6 monthly rotating President; note that there also is a separate European Council President, appointed by heads of EU countries), the European Commission (27 Commissioners, nominated by the Council - another President), the European Parliament (705 members elected by EU citizens), and Council of the European Union (27 national ministers). Confused? I think that is the intent.
The EU parliament moves its sitting place between Strasbourg and Brussels to try to please everyone. This elaborate and cunning governance system effectively hides the fact that the unelected bureaucrats are in charge of everything. You can read more about how the system is designed at this link.
EU parliamentarians have extraordinary “perks” that keep them happy with duty-free shopping, while the bureaucrats implement myriad and complex regulations. Nonetheless, there has been a mini-revolt in the recent EU elections, with a move to right-wing parties (because of unrestricted European migration).
All right-wing parties made great gains in the EU elections, with the greatest move to the right being seen in France. As a result of what President Emmanuel Macron called a “threat from the right to the future of France”, a sudden election was called for the National Assembly.
Macron’s logic was that given that the policies of the right were in conflict with those of Macron, an election was needed so that the French would come to their senses. De Gaulle tried similar shock tactics in 1968 and it worked for him.
Macron’s own party has gone through a name change from En Marche! to Renaissance but the party gained less than 20% of the vote in the EU elections. Recent polls about the first round of voting on June 30 this year, indicate that the right-wing National Rally leads Renaissance by 35% to 18%.
France has a two-round election system with voting on 30th June and 7th July. I found this article in France24 helpful in explaining the election and voting system:
“French voters will elect 577 lawmakers from as many districts to sit in the lower-house National Assembly in June. The lawmakers are known as deputies and sit for five-year terms, voting for (or against) legislation in a semi-circular chamber – known colloquially as the hémicycle – inside the Bourbon Palace in central Paris”.
French voters have the opportunity to change their minds because there are two votes, one week apart. France24 notes:
“In each district, the vote takes place in two rounds, one week apart. But if one candidate scores an absolute majority, more than 50 percent of the vote as well as 25 percent of registered voters, the individual is elected without the need for a second round. That feat is rare, however: only four deputies of the 577 elected in 2017 won office directly in the first round.
Every candidate who wins the support of at least 12.5 percent of registered voters can advance to the second round. If only one candidate hits that mark, the next-highest-scoring candidate nevertheless gets promoted to the second-round duel. If no candidate manages it, the top two vote-getters advance regardless.”
This system, uniquely French, is hard to understand but a similar system is employed for the French presidential elections. Currently, the right-wing Rassemblement National (National Rally) is ahead in the opinion polls and is being led by the young (28 year old) and charismatic Jordan Bardella. His party is anticipated to be the winner in the French elections for the National Assembly and if so, Macron would need to appoint him as Prime Minister. This would be an awkward arrangement (in French called cohabitation) because there is a huge gulf between the policies of Macron and Bardella.
The next French presidential elections are not until 2027. If Rassemblement National continues to make gains and is well-supported, Marine Le Pen, their right-wing leader who is not standing in the current elections, may be the next French President. This would shake up the European Union.
Some Conclusions
The winds of change are blowing throughout the West and critical elections in the France, the UK and the US over the next months could change policy directions and support for Ukraine. However, the Deep State is at work to ensure that the globalist, technocratic, UN interests are moved progressively forward.
There does seem to be potential for conflict between the US “neocons” and their desire for US dominance, with aims of the globalists. The US, backed by the secret powers of an unrestrained CIA, may be the winner. However, the globalists, going back to John D. Rockefeller, hold all the financial cards.
The surveillance state, exposed by Edward Snowden in 2013, has grown in capability and is now backed up by Big Tech and so it is likely that globalist interests will be moved relentlessly forward. These interests include those of the “military-industrial” complex, which has now expanded to include Big Pharma, Big Tech and a wide range of public-private-partnerships.
War then becomes a tool, and a profitable one for some. Professor Sachs believes that around US$7 trillion has been spent on various wars “defending America”. Listening to Professor Sachs this week opened my eyes to a longer-term strategy that has been promoted relentlessly across, Bush Snr-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden administrations. This is the policy, described in the document: Project for the New American Century of “the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces”
The permanent administrative state holds all the cards, although we have the illusion of democracy in the West. This illusion is best demonstrated by the impenetrable and incomprehensible EU governance, where using smoke and mirrors, a permanent technocratic state has been embedded in 27 nations. The system is beautifully explained in the wonderful film: Brexit The Movie made eight years ago. It is wortwhile spending the 70 min to view it. The link is below.
Looking from a biblical perspective, all the tools are in place to move toward a one-world system, led by a deceptive global leader to “save us and bring us peace”. It is difficult to know the time frame but Jesus provided a few critical pieces of advice to His disciples: “do not be deceived” (Matthew 24:4); “watch and pray" (Matthew 26:41). These words are our best guide for negotiating the difficult times ahead.
King Solomon provided some additional guidance around 1,000 years before Jesus’ birth. This is outlined in the Book of Proverbs 3:5-7,
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart,|
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
Fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.”
This is wisdom.