Apr 27, 2015
Investigative Journalist James Corbett of the Corbett Report joins me with some very bad news about the New World Order. James says that despite the formation of the BRICS Banks, the Shanghai Gold Exchange and the new Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the International Banker’s plans to usher in their New World Order remain firmly in place and on track. How could that be when the evidence suggest that the world is moving away from the Dollar as wealth moves from West to East? Because, James says, “At the very top of this Bankster pyramid, the Chinese elite is connected directly in with the U.S. Western elite.”
James has carefully documented the “8 Immortal Families” in his report on China and the New World Order which shows how the 8 Immortals are totally connected to Henry Kissinger and the Rockefeller-Rothschikld banking elite. This is the way they will lead us into a New WORLD Order.
“The West is being engineered into a world system of governance and government that can only come about through the rise of the East. It’s been puppeteered from the very start. There is no doubt that China’s rise right now is something that has been long planned for and carefully engineered.”
This article originally appeared in The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter on August 23, 2014. To subscribe to the newsletter and become a member of The Corbett Report website, please sign up for a monthly or annual membership here.
Last week we attempted to dispel some of the confusion surrounding the World Bank and the IMF, how the two are differentiated, and what the World Bank actually does.
As you’ll recall, Bretton Woods architect John Maynard Keynes admitted that the confusion over the bodies was embedded in their names; the World Bank should rightly be referred to as a fund (for development projects) and the International Monetary Fund as a bank (to help countries cover balance of payment deficits and ensure financial stability). The World Bank itself is a body that ostensibly provides long-term low interest or no interest loans secured on the global bond market to fund sectoral reforms and infrastructure development projects in some of the poorest countries in the world.
As we saw last week, however, the Bank is used as a weapon by the economic hitmen identified by John Perkins and others, directing infrastructure development funds to crony corporations and forcing countries into debt obligations that they will be unable to meet. These impossible debt obligations are then used to give the Bank leverage over the developing world economically and geopolitically. What’s more, both the IMF and the World Bank have historically been controlled by the US and Europe, and clamors for reform in governance from the developing countries have fallen on deaf ears.
It is in the context of this IMF/World Bank stranglehold over the global financial architecture that we have to understand the stunning development that took place at the 6th BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) Summit in Fortaleza, Brazil last month: the creation of a New Development Bank (NDB) to compete with the World Bank in providing funds for infrastructure development to developing nations and the creation of a Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) to compete with the IMF in providing liquidity protection to countries with balance of payment difficulties.
The development was by no means surprising: the idea for a BRICS development bank has been bandied about for years now and was written about in the pages of this newsletter extensively last year. Nor does it represent (at least at this point) a fundamental challenge to the World Bank or IMF’s dominance; neither the NDB’s $50 billion USD in subscribed capital nor the CRA’s $100 billion liquidity pool come close to the World Bank’s $232.8 billion in subscribed capital or the IMF’s $755 billion in liquidity ($1.4 trillion if you include emergency funds). Neither do they have the infrastructure yet in place to coordinate and deploy these funds, nor a track record of working with the world’s poorest countries to ensure that funds reach their intended targets and not the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians and middlemen.
Still, there is something of a revolutionary feel to the obligatory pictures of the smiling BRICS leaders coming out of this year’s summit. This year the smiles do not seem quite as forced. Perhaps they even seem a little self-assured. It may be a baby step, but after all it is a step toward a world where the poorest countries do not have to turn cap in hand to the IMF or World Bank for financial aid.
But what are the implications of this for the developing countries themselves and the prospect of genuine development? What does this development say about the BRICS and their growing ambition on the world geopolitical stage? And where does this fit into the age-old banker quest for global government? To answer these questions, we must first examine the institutions in question.
by James Corbett
July 20, 2014
This post is intended as a round-up of available information on MH17 from various sources around the web. Corbett Report members are encouraged to debate and discuss the situation in the commments thread below, ask questions, suggest links, and otherwise contribute to this investigation. The article will be updated with information as the investigation continues. [Not a Corbett Report member? Sign up today.]
GENERAL INFORMATION ON MH17:
“A Boeing 777-200 passenger plane, operating Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, crashed in the Ukraine, east of Donetsk. All 298 on board were killed. Flight MH17 departed the gate at Amsterdam-Schiphol Airport, the Netherlands at 12:14 hours local time, bound for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It was airborne at 12:30 (10:30 UTC) from runway 36C and reached a cruising altitude of FL310 at 12:53 (10:53 UTC). Ninety minutes into the flight, at 12:01 UTC and just prior to entering Ukrainian airspace, the flight climbed to FL330. This altitude was maintained until last contact by ADS-B receivers of flight tracking websites, about 13:21 UTC.
“At the point of last contact it was flying 1000 feet above airspace that had been restricted as a result of ongoing fighting in the area. Malaysia Airlines reported that MH17 filed a flight plan requesting FL350 throughout Ukrainian airspace. However, the flight was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at FL330.”
via New York Times:
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CRASH:
ITAR-TASS reported in June that Donetsk defense forces seized BUK missile defence systems from an army unit operating in the region, a point repeated and echoed by NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Philip Breedlove in a Pentagon press briefing on June 30. However, this was directly contradicted on July 18th by Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema, who told Ukrainian Pravda that militias do not have access to BUK delivery systems or S-300s.
On July 19, Ukrainian intelligence posted what they claim to be intercepted communications showing Russian responsibility for the downing of MH17 along with an English transcript. Numerous alternative media sources claim that the creation timestamp on the video indicates it was created before the crash took place.
Ukraine also claims that a post appeared on the social media account of rebel commander Igor Strelkov exactly 35 minutes after the crash appearing to take credit for the downing. Subsequent reporting, however, pointed out that the post was ambiguously worded and the social media account in question may not be run by Strelkov at all.
The Ukraine security service also published a video on July 18th purporting to show the actual BUK missile launcher used to bring down the plane being shuttled back across the border from Ukraine to Russia. Despite the fact that there is no confirmation from any source when, where or how this video was taken, or whether it in fact shows a BUK system on a Russian transport vehicle, it has been uncritically reported on in much of the western press.
In a statement issued late in the day on July 17th, Russian President Putin said: “I want to note that this tragedy would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine. And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.”
A report originally posted to RT.com shortly after the downing suggested that the real target of the missile might have been President Putin’s plane, which was said to have been scheduled to fly over the exact same airspace as MH17 less than an hour after it was shot down. This claim has since been retracted and RT has noted that Putin has been avoiding Ukrainian airspace altogether since the recent coup took place in Kiev.
According to a report circulating widely in the alternative media, a Spanish air traffic controller working in the Ukraine on the 17th tweeted a series of messages indicating that the Ukrainian military shot down the flight and that “Kiev authorities” and “foreigners” subsequently took over the civilian air traffic control center overseeing the disputed airspace in an apparent cover-up. The twitter account (@spainbuca) of the alleged air traffic controller, “Carlos,” was then reportedly removed. [UPDATE: RT has conducted interviews with Carlos, who has been deported from Ukraine.]
Some researchers suggest that the timing of the disaster, coming as it does right after Putin heralded the beginning of the long-awaited BRICS Development Bank is more than coincidental. This theory posits that the crash was staged by the US/EU/NATO or other powers as part of a proxy war taking place in the “new cold war” between Russia (one of the key players in an organization that is seen as a key rival to the so-called “Washington Consensus” institutions, the IMF and the World Bank) and the US.
Some have suggested that the takedown of MH17 was also related to the six passengers on board who were heading to an AIDS conference in Melbourne hosted by the International AIDS society. The theory holds that the researchers were going to question the origins of AIDS and were taken out in a similar manner to Dr. Jonathan Mann.
Yet others point to the numerology of MH17, noting “Flight MH17, a Boeing 777, first flew on 7-17-97 and crashed 17 years later, on 7-17-14.” It has also been linked to a bizarre video of a speech IMF President Christine Lagarde gave at the National Press Club in Washington on January 15, 2014 in which she repeatedly told the audience to pay attention to the “magic number 7″ and made numerological connections to WWI and other events.
The Corbett Report
Jun 19, 2014
Today James appears on The Sage of Quay Radio Hour to discuss how the alt media is failing to live up to its promise of providing a true alternative to MSM propaganda by constantly reacting to the MSM memes and idea, and how the independent media can overcome this by promoting the positive solutions and alternative infrastructures that are now possible. We also discuss what Edward Snowden and his “revelations” really mean and then wrap up with James giving his insights on the de-dollarization being pursued by the BRICS alliance lead by Russia.
Center For Syncretic Studies
May 1, 2014
video below – 17 minutes – Interview of Joaquin Flores by Maurice Herman
Oleksandr Turchinov all but capitulated on April 30th, with clear statements that he has entirely lost control of the Army and the ‘East’ of Ukraine. However, not controlling the army also means that he has lost control of the entire Kiev based regime and the whole rump-state of Ukraine along with it.
In this interview, international relations and security analyst Mr. Flores explores some of the following implications and items related to this momentous statement from Kiev.
– Tsarev heeds Dugin’s advice/warning, meaning referendum election will result in secession from Ukraine
– May Elections in east and south will be marred by violence by Pravy Sektor and NATO Mercenaries; to be blamed on Russia and western media to declare ‘null election result’.
– Globalization being reversed, toothless western sanctions, rise of BRICS and multipolarity
– All oblasts and areas that voted Party of Regions in the past will eventually join Russia
by Umberto Pascali
September 17, 2013
The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the “US-centric internet”).
Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was the revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a historic step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from Vladivostock, Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa to Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final phase of implementation.
No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by the broader public.
Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that international investors are now jumping with both feet on this unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already happened.
Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear will be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a global network built with minimal interference by governments.
President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at greater Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians who entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and Google.
by Nile Bowie
April 2, 2013
One of the least discussed and least reported issues is the Obama administration’s effort to bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to the forefront, an oppressive plurilateral US-led free trade agreement currently being negotiated with several Pacific Rim countries. Six hundred US corporate advisors have negotiated and had input into the TPP, and the proposed draft text has not been made available to the public, the press or policymakers. The level of secrecy surrounding the agreements is unparalleled – paramilitary teams scatter outside the premise of each round of discussions while helicopters loom overhead – media outlets impose a near-total blackout of reportage on the subject and US Senator Ron Wyden, the Chair of the Congressional Committee with jurisdiction over TPP, was denied access to the negotiation texts. “The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations — like Halliburton, Chevron, PhaRMA, Comcast and the Motion Picture Association of America — are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement,” said Wyden, in a floor statement to Congress.
In addition to the United States, the countries participating in the negotiations include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Japan has expressed its desire to become a negotiating partner, but not yet joined negotiation, partly due to public pressure to steer-clear. The TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented rights to demand taxpayer compensation for policies they think will undermine their expected future profits straight from the treasuries of participating nations – it would push the agenda of Big PhaRMA in the developing world to impose longer monopoly controls on drugs, drastically limiting access to affordable generic medications that people depend on. The TPP would undermine food safety by limiting labeling and forcing countries like the United States to import food that fails to meet its national safety standards, in addition to banning Buy America or Buy Local preferences.
In the private investor-state that the TPP is attempting to establish, foreign corporations can sue national governments, submitting signatory countries to the jurisdiction of investor arbitral tribunals, staffed by private sector attorneys. International tribunals could have authority to order governments to pay unlimited cash compensation out of national treasuries to foreign corporations and investors if new or existing government policy hinders investors’ expected future profits. The domestic taxpayer in each signatory country must shoulder any compensation paid to private investors and foreign corporations, in addition to large hourly fees for tribunals and legal costs. A good example of how this agreement neuters national sovereignty comes from Malaysia, which was able to recover from the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis more quickly than its neighbors by introducing a series of capital control measures on the Malaysian ringgit to prevent external speculation – the TPP’s proposed measures would restrict signatory nations from exercising capital controls to prevent and mitigate financial crises and promote financial stability.
Of the 26 chapters of the proposed TPP draft text, it is reported that only two chapters cover trade issues, related to slashing tariffs and lifting quotas. The TPP would obligate the federal government to force US states to conform state laws to over a thousand pages of detailed stipulations and constraints unrelated to trade – from land use to intellectual property rights – authorizing the federal authorities to use all possible means to coax states to comply with TPP rules, even by imposing sanctions if they fail to do so. According to leaked documents, US standards for property rights protection would be swept away in favor of international property rights standards, as interpreted by TPP’s unelected international tribunals, giving investors principal control over public land and resources “that are not for the exclusive or predominant use and benefit of the government.”
This article appeared on Counterpunch.
Nile Bowie is an independent political analyst and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached at email@example.com
April 1, 2013
The U.S Dollar is quickly losing its status as the world reserve currency. Five of the top ten economies in the world, plus a few others, no longer use the dollar as an intermediary currency for trade. This trend poses a huge risk to the dollar and the United States along with it.
ZeroHedge points out today that Australia, the world’s 12th-ranked economy, has now joined a growing list of nations that have agreed to bypass the dollar in bilateral trade with China. China, ranked 2nd behind the U.S., also has similar agreements with Japan (3rd), Brazil (6th), India (9th), and Russia (10th).
Although unilateral agreements have been in place for some time between China and the countries listed above, last week the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) agreed to set up a development bank to compete with the IMF, indicating it’s gearing up to compete in a post-dollar world.
Additionally, Brazil, who agreed in principle to drop the dollar with bilateral trade with China some time ago, just made it official with $30 billion in annual currency swaps which will facilitate around 50% of all trade between them.
Besides those agreements with China, some of these nations have made other similar agreements with each other. India and Japan began swapping $15 billion in each other’s currency in 2011 to handle their bilateral trade. And the sanctions against Iran haven’t stopped them from trading oil with China, Russia, and India in anything but the dollar.
Here’s how the current reign of the US dollar compares to previous world reserve currency:
It appears that the dollar is certainly nearing the end of its reign, which could lead to severe economic hardship for the United States.
Dave Hodges writes:
The United States’ good economic fortune is due solely to the fact that world must use the dollar, the Petrodollar if you will, in order to make their nation’s individual oil purchases; this provides the only source of backing for the U.S. dollar that the Federal Reserve requires in order to somewhat sustain our back-breaking debt that the banker-occupied United States government has passed along to the American taxpayer in the form of bailouts.
And Marin Katusa of Casey Research writes:
If the US dollar loses its position as the global reserve currency, the consequences for America are dire. A major portion of the dollar’s valuation stems from its lock on the oil industry – if that monopoly fades, so too will the value of the dollar. Such a major transition in global fiat currency relationships will bode well for some currencies and not so well for others, and the outcomes will be challenging to predict. But there is one outcome that we foresee with certainty: Gold will rise. Uncertainty around paper money always bodes well for gold, and these are uncertain days indeed.
America’s imperialism, combined with its ultra-fiat status of unending debt creation, appears to have created a final downward spiral that has caused many of the top economies to abandon a sinking ship. It might not be too much longer before the rest follow suit. Now might be a great time to consider diversifying into other currencies, and even digital currencies, to mitigate growing losses in the U.S. dollar.
Read other articles by Activist Post Here
March 28, 2013
A new global bank is being born in South Africa – where the world’s top emerging economies are meeting. The new financial powerhouse would be a direct challenger to the World Bank and the IMF – both dominated by the US. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa also green-lighted a new, mammoth crisis fund – and hinted they would ditch the dollar.
End the Lie – Independent News
March 16, 2013
Syria’s President Bashar Assad has pleaded for BRICS countries to mediate the on-going conflict in the country, according to a close adviser.
“Today I passed a message from President Bashar al-Assad to President Jacob Zuma, who will preside over the March 26 BRICS summit, on the subject of the situation in Syria,” senior adviser Bouthaina Shaaban told AFP.
“In this message, President Bashar al-Assad asks for intervention by the BRICS to stop the violence in his country and encourage the opening of a dialogue, which he wishes to start.”
BRICS is a bloc of up-and-coming economies comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Shaaban has been conducting a tour of the five countries ahead of the summit in Durban.
While the five countries vary in their sympathies for the Assad regime, all of them have repeatedly professed a neutral stance on the conflict, and have regularly voted against stricter resolutions against the current Syrian government.
The rebellion against President Assad began two years ago, and the death toll may have exceeded 60,000 according to the UN.
March 27, 2013
Christof Lehmann (nsnbc),- The BRICS summit in Durban, South Africa is being concluded with the successful establishment of a BRICS Development Bank, a BRICS Rating Agency to oppose the moody (criminally blackmailing and corrupt) Moodys or Standards & Poor rating agencies, the probable inclusion of the ailing but still potent north African powerhouse Egypt, and other developments, which will be coming down like “A Ton of BRICS” on the (f)ailing US and EU economies.
Also other nations, who are not part of “The Club” have reasons for concern. In Asia it would be nations like Laos, the DPRK, Nepal and Vietnam and a similar quartet can be found in Latin America and Africa. Forgetting that there is the Good, the Bad and the Ugly side to globalization, regardless which nations are driving it, would be extremely naive.
That the BRICS is a brick which is so brittle that it is about to fall apart or experience a premature death, as Ruchir Sharma, the head of Morgan Stanley´s emerging markets investment department sees it is most likely based more on wishful thinking than on a sound assessment of reality. Ironically, Ruchir Sharma´s downgrading of the BRICS chances for success, can be seen as a eulogy for Wall Streets moody rating of the BRICS.
The move to create a BRICS rating agency is a refreshing and much needed renewal in an international environment where rating agencies are best known for being moody and for having a poor standard with regard to ethical integrity.
It is too early to say whether the BRICS rating agency will be better, or if it will be(come) as moody and poor in its standards as the ones that have dominated (tyrannized) global markets so far. It remains to be seen. I am sure that some Wall Street brokers who are worst hit by the all too prevalent ludo-mania will already buying options (betting) on the issue, and who can blame them, with an administration in Washington that reimburses the gambler´s losses with tax-payer´s money.
Under any circumstances, a BRICS rating agency will bring a fresh breeze into a stagnant pond and maybe revitalize the business of rating. If one medical practitioner gives a diagnosis about a malign systemic disorder, as true as it may be, it is always good to have the possibility of consulting a second opinion before one goes shopping for a good burial site.
The creation of a BRICS Development Bank is a real step forward and the decision to endow it with a start capital of USD 50 billion should turn it into a moderately powerful developmental powerhouse among global banks. Infrastructure projects, developmental projects can be facilitated with far greater independence from traditional global banking houses and more independent from the (f)ailing US and EU economies.
Neither the USA nor the EU will have a say in this bank, which has the potential to facilitate the development toward a viable alternative to the Bretton Woods system. The BRICS Development Bank could ideally become an alternative to disaster capitalism and casino capitalism driven development and create viable, feasible, beneficial infrastructure where it is most needed.
In some regards BRICS members have been stepping on one another´s feet rather than conquering protected new markets and it may very well be, that the increased economical and political cooperation will result in a less infighting and more aggressively expanding cartel. An improved trade balance between BRICS members is most likely one of the results which will transpire, as the final outcome of Durban is being analyzed.
The trouble with the creation of cartels, in which members protect each other from harming each other´s economies by swamping them with cheap products without at least a due compensation, is that such cartels predominantly will have to seek their expansion on the cost of national economies beyond the cartel´s borders. Swamping other, weaker national economies with cheap products.
Both the USA and the European Union have their trade barriers well in place. Likely targets are countries like Nepal, to be increasingly targeted by India, Laos, to be increasingly targeted by China, and so forth. As good as the development may be for a nation like India, a country with an immense need and potential for the development of infrastructure, as bad or ugly may such a development become for weak neighbors.
The visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping in Russia was a crucial world-political signal. The first official visit abroad as President of China resulted in stronger political, economical and military ties between Russia and China.
The fact that China has agreed to buy large quantities of Russian oil is not merely based on the fact that China has an immense hunger for oil. The deal was a clear signal to Russia. As it can be read in a 2012 interview by Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabari with the scribe, it was a reward and long expected compensation for Russian losses, resulting from the European Union´s Third Energy Packet, Russia´s role with regard to the Syria crisis and more. (1
Both Russia, China and India experience energy security problems, and the potential “new kid on the brick, Egypt, is also being targeted.
Russia, as already mentioned, faces a literal war about Syria and the PARS gas pipeline project already.(2 NATO is planning the establishment of the Kurdish Corridor which has absolutely vital consequences with regard to Caspian oil and gas pipeline projects.
China withdrew from the Iran Pakistan pipeline project. (3 The move was among other based on price-risk assessments. Construction on the Iran – Pakistan pipeline was begun in 2013 and the pipeline will, according to current plans end in Pakistan´s norther Baluchistan province, where the USA is fanning the flames of a low-intensity conflict. (4 China may at a later time decide whether it will finance a prolongation of the pipeline, but finds the project within the current geo-political situation too risky.
Both India and China have serious energy security concerns related to western and Bangladeshi attempts to destabilize Myanmar, and in particular Myanmar´s Rakhine State. The building of the pipeline from Myanmar to India, through Bangladeshi territory has been delayed multiple times because of a lack of convergence in the energy requirements of India and Bangladesh. As a response to known security risk factors related to previous and current attempts by Bangladesh to fight a proxy war in Myanmar´s Rakhine State, Myanmar decided to diversify the risk by building a double, oil – gas pipeline to China. Also this pipeline could be threatened if Myanmar or Myanmar´s Rakhine State are further destabilized. (5a,b,c
China will over the coming years experience increased pressure with regard to the South – East China Sea, the South China Sea, Japan, and there are indications for that the USA is planning a careful return to Vietnam. The ongoing low-intensity conflict in Malaysia over the “Kingdom of Sabah” seems to be tied to western attempts to limit Chinese access to resources. (6
The new kid on the block, Egypt, which owns part of the considerable gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean Levantine Basin, and which already has experience one “Arab Spring Regime Change” is most likely seeking closer ties to China and Russia for the very same reason. The BRICS powers openness toward Egypt could indicate that especially Russia is attempting to reassert its traditionally much stronger influence in the Middle East and over Egypt.
The downside of the closer cooperation within the BRICS is that the cartel may be tempted to secure the growth of the BRICS members economies by overpowering small, vulnerable economies which are struggling already. This, potentially ugly side of globalism can best be demonstrated by looking at Laos.
Laos is already struggling with adapting to the opening of the inner market of ASEAN in 2014. Even though the government of Laos is working hard at fulfilling the conditions for entering the open market, the country may have to ask, probably will ask for dispensations and more time. Laos has a rich cultural life. Especially rural families maintain a rich, traditional life based on small family farms, small productions. (7
Whether BRICS (+E ? ) should be counted to The Good, The Bad, or The Ugly Globalist Cartels will ultimately be determined by how “the ton of bricks” that is about to come down on the worlds economies will handle mechanisms to encourage the development of the weakest economies, alleviate poverty, raise social development and more, without destroying the national economies and cultures around it. A rotting plastic bag in a natural habitat does not become a lesser threat because it does not have Coka Cola printed on it, and self-hating western anti-imperialism is naive if it is uncritical toward globalism because is is driven by nations which oppose US/NATO imperialism and hegemony.
Related article: The World Bank: Rejecting “The Rule of Law”
1) China will force peaceful solution to Syrian crisis on West: German pundit. Koursh Ziabai interviews Christof Lehmann.