HANNIBAL CANNIBAL HARPER a PUPPET of the KHAZARIAN CABAL Is Taking Canadian’s to War in Syria for the real Criminal Terrorist WAKE UP CANADA

ISIS mission: Canadian airstrikes on Syria could come within days

Conservatives say military strikes in Syria are legally justified and necessary

The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 30, 2015 6:04 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2015 7:05 AM ET

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper rises to vote to extend Canada's involvement in airstrikes against ISIS and expand the mission into Syria for up to a year.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper rises to vote to extend Canada’s involvement in airstrikes against ISIS and expand the mission into Syria for up to a year. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

 

Canadian fighter jets will soon be launching airstrikes in Syria now that the House of Commons has approved the federal government’s plan to expand and extend its military mission in Iraq.​

 

Federal MPs voted 142-129 in favour of a motion extending the mission for up to a full year and authorizing bombing runs in Syria against targets belonging to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

A senior government source told CBC News that Canada could begin airstrikes on Syrian targets within a day or two.

The original mission deployed six CF-18 fighter jets, one CC-150 Polaris air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft. Some 600 aircrew and other personnel are currently deployed.

Up to 69 special forces advisers will also remain in the region to advise and assist Kurdish peshmerga forces in their efforts to beat back the advance of ISIS militants.

Operation IMPACT

A CF-18 Hornet from Air Task Force-Iraq engages in nighttime air-to-air refuelling with a CC-150T Polaris during Canada’s combat mission against ISIS. MPs will vote Monday on whether to extend the mission for a year and expand the mandate to authorize airstrikes in Syria. (Canadian Forces Combat Camera)

The Conservatives say military strikes in Syria are legally justified and necessary, and that Canada has a moral obligation to do its part to beat back the global threat of terrorism.

“While the coalition has succeeded in stopping ISIL’s territorial spread, the global threat that ISIL poses remains,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement after the vote.

“In particular, we cannot stand on the sidelines while ISIL continues to promote terrorism in Canada as well as against our allies and partners, nor can we allow ISIL to have a safe haven in Syria,” Harper said.

Neither the NDP nor the Liberals supported the original mission, nor its extension, arguing the government had not adequately made the case for going to war in the first place and in the six months since, haven’t been honest with Canadians about it the mission’s true scope.

NDP amendments fail

The New Democrats had sought to amend the motion to remove Canadians from combat and refocus all the government’s efforts on humanitarian work. Their amendments failed to pass.

The Conservatives say the plan to allow Canadian fighter jets to bomb ISIS targets within Syria would not be to prop up Assad. Islamic State fighters are using the eastern part of that country as a base and cannot be allowed to do so, they argue.

The opposition has argued that Canada lacks the legal basis to expand air strikes into Syria without that country’s express consent, something the Conservatives had said last year they would seek before expanding the mission.

The government’s premise that those strikes are legal because they are in Canada’s self-defence does not hold water, the opposition says — an argument supported by the fact no other Western nation besides the U.S. is involved there.

“This is a serious ethical problem for Canada. Dismissing it betrays the government’s lack of knowledge about a region that could suck Canada into decades of conflict,” said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair during the debate Monday.

“The prime minister tells Canadians that we can either bomb Iraq and Syria, or sit on the sidelines. That’s a false choice.”

Irwin Cotler abstains from vote

Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, well-respected by all MPs on matters of international law and human rights, had said he would abstain from the vote in part because of the government’s Syrian approach.

“In October, I was unable to support the government’s motion because of the Prime Minister’s statement that Canada would give a veto to the criminal Assad regime,” he said in a statement.

“I remain unable to support the government in this matter because its proposed expansion of Canada’s mission continues to allow Assad to assault Syrian civilians with impunity.”

Former Liberal MP Scott Andrews, now sitting as an Independent following his expulsion from caucus over allegations of sexual harassment, broke ranks with his former party and voted with the Conservatives in favour.

The extended timeline for the mission is in part so that a renewal wouldn’t come during this fall’s federal election.

Should they form government, the NDP have said they’d immediately pull Canada out of the bombing campaign, and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said he would do the same.

The Liberals, would, however, increase the number of soldiers sent to train Iraqis to fight ISIS.

But with no clear end goal for the bombing mission, Trudeau said Monday, it’s not one his party can support.

“Will our involvement in this mission end next March, or was the foreign affairs minister being more truthful when he explicitly compared this war to Afghanistan, saying that we are in this for the longer term,” Trudeau said.

“We cannot allow rhetorical appeals to moral clarity to disguise the absence of a plan.”

Among other things, Trudeau called for a massive expansion of Canada’s resettlement program for refugees from the conflict and for more Canadian soldiers to be involved in training Iraqi forces.

There was no obligation for Parliament to vote on the mission before it began, but the Harper government has made it a practice to hold a vote prior to military deployments.

Advertisements

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Free Speech fall prey to Zionist misfeasance

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Free Speech fall prey to Zionist misfeasance

by Arthur Topham

March 6, 2013 by admin 4 Comments

 photo CanadianOutlaws1_zpsbd51ee59.png

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Charter of Rights fall prey to Zionist misfeasance

By Arthur Topham

March 3, 2013

The recent, decision handed down on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by six of Canada’s Supreme Court justices, in the Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott case, was indeed a ‘supreme’ blow to Christians, to freedom of religion and to every individual’s right to freedom of speech in Canada. At the same time, it also was a remarkably clandestine victory for the foreign Zionist-Jew lobby groups such as B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA); all of whom reflect, represent and condone, in unabashed fashion, the principles and policies of the Zionist state of Israel, over and above the traditional rule of law that has been the hallmark of Canadian jurisprudence from its earliest beginnings.

On top of this victorious legal coup that the vast majority of Canadians remain either ignorant of or in denial of, there are the added collaborating players in this long-range agenda to subvert and mould Canada’s judiciary into a type more in keeping with that of the U.S.A’s; one which, in recent years, has become permeated by their Jewish lobby groups to such an extent that they’ve effectively emasculated the US legal system by introducing their own brand of Jewish Noahide laws into American jurisprudence. These Noahide laws are, in fact, ones that stem from the ancient writings of the Jewish Talmud; a horrendously hoary and convoluted compilation of endless sophistry and intellectual meanderings that attempt to cover the full gamut of possible mental masterbation on any conceivable topic capable of debate, all of which boggles the mind and taxes the heart and soul of anyone who is able to locate and delve into the bottomless pit of arcane, abstruse, macabre deliberations found therein.

It is my contention, based upon all recent research and extrapolation, that this same clandestine, Fifth Column Zionist-instigated seditious process is, and has been, occurring here in Canada since the inception of our nation’s “hate speech laws” that, coincidentally, began to gain ascendency in Canada’s house of justice back in the late 1960′s when the major Jewish lobby groups first began to amalgamate and initiate this calculated, step by step, surreptitious program of incremental changes to Canada’s legal system; one that would eventually see the switch over from former Christian democratic principles of freedom of speech to those of the Talmudic Jewish Noahide laws under which Jewry has operated over the past two millennia.  It is also my added contention that these subtle changes have been, and are being, spearheaded by those very justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who hold duel citizenship with the state of Israel and whose ultimate allegiance, I strongly allege, is first and foremost to that foreign nation.

Compounding and exacerbating this traitorous intent to corrupt and debase Canada’s legal system via “hate crime legislation” is the growing realization by many Canadians that our so-called “independent” media is, in fact, totally controlled, editorially and otherwise, by this same self-serving Zionist Jew consortium and that these media monopolists, along with their line of sycophantic, satanic journalists and talking heads, are the major propaganda force behind this plot to subvert the Canadian justice system.

Most Canadians who have not been asleep at the wheel politically are now fully cognizant of the fact that the Harper Conservative government is the key to the success of these Zionist “hate crime” operatives and their eventual triumph in binding the mouths and minds of Canadians so that any and all criticism of their planned take-over of the country will not be openly discussed, either in the print media, television or on the Internet. Their arsenal of epithets stands ready 24/7 to support any smear & fear campaign necessary to belittle and slander and denigrate those who show any indication of not bowing down in obeisance to their treasonous scheme to dismantle and re-create our former legal system so as to have it fit harmoniously with all the other nations that have also been infiltrated by these same self-chosen zealots.

The whole of the homosexual agenda is but one of the ruses that these lobbyists use in order to divide, confuse and conquer their opponents and justify, via their human rights commissions, tribunals and their Supreme Court double-agents, the introduction of more and more repressive anti-democratic “hate speech” laws. These tactics, for those who have studied the Zionist’s modus operandi to any degree, are par for the course. The crucial thing for them is to use others rather than come straight out and say we’re bringing in all these repressive, Orwellian laws because we don’t want Canadians discussing and debating our ideology, our motives or our agenda; one that includes enslaving and punishing anyone who steps out of line and beyond that the total destruction of the Christian religion as we now know it.

There is, on top of all these seemingly inexplicable occurrences, a vital question that needs to asked and addressed with respect to the inordinate number of Zionist, duel-citizenship Jewish justices who have somehow wended their way upwards to the apex of Canada’s judicial system and are now literally in positions of supreme power and control with respect to influencing both our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given that Canada is noted world wide for being a proactive, multicultural nation; one that welcomes immigrants from around the world to its shores and touts itself as being an open, free and culturally diverse society, the blatant imbalance that we are witnessing today in the ethnic composition of our Supreme Court justices is beyond question a problem in dire need of explanation.

Were we, as a nation, to give equal opportunity and consideration to the various visible minorities that make up our country’s population then this ought to be reflected in the composition of those who sit in judgement at the top of our federal judicial system.

Knowing that our First Nations population is the largest minority group in Canada it behooves all Canadians to ask the obvious: why do we not have a First Nations justice sitting in on our supreme court? Given that this nation was formed, literally, from the soil of the original people’s land and also given that the First Nations people constitute the largest group in the Canadian population matrix does it not make sense that when it comes to representing their interests that someone from their ranks ought to be a member of this august group of supreme court justices?

Next in line is our Chinese-Canadian population topping the list as the largest visible minority in Canada and again the obvious question is: why do we not have a Chinese-Canadian justice sitting in the SCC?

Next in line we have a very large South Asian population followed by an equally large black population. Where are the South Asian and the Black supreme court justices?

Finally, getting to the crux of this perplexing situation, as we go down the scale of relative population demographics  we come to the ethnic Jewish population in Canada which, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, in 2010 numbered 375,000 in population, ranking somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25th in terms of group size and comprising, out of a total population of 33,890,000 Canadians, 1.1% of Canada’s total population. Yet, for their relatively small numbers in terms of percentages they now hold 4 out of 9 positions on Canada’s Supreme Court. That works out to 44.4% of Canada’s supreme court justices somehow stemming from 1.1 % of the country’s total population. If common sense cannot tell people that there is a glaring discrepancy here then something surely is wrong in the way that Canadians view the make-up of their nation’s highest court.  No amount of intellectual verbiage can explain why this is so without getting into the fundamental question of what the real reasons are for this most obvious of imbalances wherein we have a preponderance of duel-citizen Jewish justices sitting and deliberating the vital questions currently being discussed in this brief essay.

Of course the immediate reaction from the Zionist lobbies is to reach up their proverbial sleeve and pull out their “anti-Semitic” and “hate speech” cards and flash them across the nation via their controlled media in typical fashion whenever their power base is questioned or threatened. Then will follow their sophistry and rhetoric emanating from the academics and talking heads arguing that this blatant discrepancy is simply due to the fact that Jewish lawyers are the most intelligent, experienced and therefore qualified of all of Canada’s lawyers and, like the cream atop the cow’s milk, they naturally rise up to those positions of eminence and power.

As the kids would say, “Yah, sure.”

To conclude, it cannot be stressed or repeated enough that we either have free speech or we have controlled speech where Big Brother takes control of our conscience and our mind and leaves us as automatons and slaves to do their bidding and those who now sit in judgement over our collective rights , due to their recent actions in the Whatcott case, must be treated with the utmost suspicion and their motives fully analyzed.

The time to act on these concerns is yesterday. Tomorrow may be too late.

The SCC Puppets

I present below the figures of the three Ashkenazi Zionists who have, along with their controllers in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, and the other three Shabbez Goi justices, perpetrated this seditious act of attempting to twist the truth and our human right to freedom of speech into some form of kosher, Zionist fritter all the better to fragment and confuse the people of Canada so as to lure our nation further astray into the nightmare that awaits the world should Zionism ever gain full control over independent nation states.

It must also be adamantly born in mind as well that the fact that I am presenting and focusing on these three individuals is absolutely not to be misconstrued as having excused the other three protagonists in this deceptive legal drama. The primary purpose here is accent the Jewish lobby in Canada and its unsavory effect upon Canada’s legal system. It goes without saying that the other three justices have, for whatever reasons, also consented to this agenda and ought to be removed from their positions along with the three Zionist duel-citizen justices in question here.

McLachlin photo McLachlincopy_zps96a077d6.png

With respect to Canada’s current Madam Chief Justice McLachlin it is also relevant and fitting that the following quote by Jason Moscovitz of the CBC be mentioned here as it is most relevant to an understanding of the mindset of these six judicial side-kicks when it comes to our right to freedom of speech.  Jason Moscovitz states: “Of all the attributes she brings to the high court, there is one that sticks out. Many legal experts say she does not consider the Charter of Rights to be necessarily sacred.” [Jason Moscovitz CBC Date: 991103 Time: 22:00:00 ET – 22:26:00 ET]

AbellaFlag photo abellaFlag_zpsbf55ffb4.png

While still in her twenties SCC Abella was appointed a member of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. Her husband, Irving Abella, is the J. Richard Shiff Professor of Canadian Jewish Studies at York University in Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, one of the leading “hate speech law” lobby groups in Canada.

SCC Justice Abella is on the International Board of the Hebrew University, a member of the United States Holocaust Museum’s Committee on Conscience (again, pushing the 6 million lies of the Zionists that have become since WWII one of the principal pillars supporting all of their criminal actions since that time).

The president (Canadian Section) of the International Commission of Jurists, cited her as one whose “entire life has revolved around the cause of human rights… She has shaped Canadian policy in equality rights, and…has also had a profound impact on human rights law and policy outside Canada.” The precise manner in HOW SCC has “shaped Canadian policy in equality rights” is now fairly apparent given her complicity in this recent and deplorable attack upon Canada’s unquestionable right to freedom of speech.

SCC Justice Abella also served as a commissioner on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Again, those who have been complicit in the actions of the human “rights” commissions here in Canada have revealed their motives clearly enough over the past decade and longer and have lost credibility in the eyes of the rest of the 98% of Canada who do not want to have their rights tampered with to satisfy the spurious and fraudulent false front arguments of special minority groups.

FishFlag photo FishFlag_zps0946efd9.png

True to his name there’s definitely something “fishy” about this lastest SCC decision.

RothsteinFlag photo RothsteinFlag_zps2256d32f.png

SCC Justice Rothstein has served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992. He has also held many other offices or appointments connected to the Manitoba Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

So what have people like Marshall Rothstein learned from all of their involvement in harassing and vilifying and criminalizing Canadians for having exercised their God-given right to freedom of expression and speech? By all appearances he’s learned that the manipulation of the law,when it is being supported by a Fifth Column media and a host of complicit, compromised politicians under the sway of the Zionist lobby, is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually a fait accompli.

———

Alex Jones: Canadian conspiracy

PWFY4rx

Canada’s PM To Putin: “I Guess I’ll Shake Your Hand…” Putin’s Response “Was Not Positive” "I have only one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine.”

Canada’s PM To Putin: “I Guess
I’ll Shake Your Hand…” Putin’s
Response “Was Not Positive”
“I have only one thing to say to
you: you need to get out of
Ukraine.”

Canada's PM To Putin: "I Guess I'll Shake Your Hand..." Putin's Response "Was Not Positive"

by Zero Hedge | November 16, 2014

Following last week’s (humiliating for the US) APEC meeting in Beijing, in which the BRIC nations clearly distanced themselves from the “developed world” and the topic of the “Russian invasion of Ukraine” was largely missing as it is clearly not in the interest of the Pacific nations to warmonger when the two key nations, Russia and China are obviously not complying with the western media ‘straight to populism‘ narrative, it was time for another major world summit, this time in the quite “western” Brisbane, Australia.

It was here that the G-7 part of the G-20 nations seized the opportunity to quickly pivot against Moscow and remind Europe that the reason why Europe is in a triple-dip recession (if one removes the GDP “boost” from hookers and blow) is because of Russia’s “take over” of east Ukraine, ignoring the reality that it was the US State Department’s Victoria Nuland that incited the Kiev coup and the west that imposed the “costly” sanctions on Russia which have hurt Germany and Europe just as badly. This was all largely lost on the local, as outside the summit, Ukrainian Australians staged an anti-Putin protest, wearing headbands reading “Putin, Killer”.

It was a full court press from the start: as the NYT reports, “at a speech at a university in Brisbane, Mr. Obama called Russia’s aggression against Ukraine a “threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shoot down of MH-17, a tragedy that took so many innocent lives, among them your fellow citizens,” a reference to the Australian citizens and residents who were killed when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 went down in eastern Ukraine.

“As your ally and friend, America shares the grief of these Australian families, and we share the determination of your nation for justice and accountability,” Mr. Obama said.”

StevenHarper_douchebag

This charade was set to continue Sunday, when leaders from the European Union planned to meet with Mr. Obama to discuss Ukraine, among other issues, said Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. He said the European Union was committed to finding a political solution to the crisis.

“We will continue to use all the diplomatic tools, including sanctions, at our disposal,” he said.

Indeed, as Reuters adds “Western leaders warned Vladimir Putin at a G20 summit on Saturday that he risked more economic sanctions if he failed to end Russian backing for separatist rebels in Ukraine.”

But perhaps the best confirmation that all the G-20 meeting was nothing but a giant populist photo-op comes from Bloomberg which reports that “Russian President Vladimir Putin got a blunt message when he approached Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a handshake at today’s Group of 20 summit in Brisbane, Australia.

“I guess I’ll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine,” Harper told Putin, the prime minister’s spokesman Jason MacDonald said in an e-mail.

Putin’s response to the comment wasn’t positive, MacDonald said, without elaborating. Putin and Harper talked briefly, according to Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

“Indeed Harper told Putin that Russia should leave Ukraine,” Peskov said by phone today in Brisbane. Putin told him that this is impossible because they are not there.”    Which is the real TRUTH” known by all alternative media station

Asked about the tone of the meeting between the two leaders, Peskov said “it was within the bounds of decency.”

Say no more.

Righteous Russian President Vladimir Putin, right,

walks past Canadian Prime Minister

 Hannibal Cannibal Stephen Harper, left,

during a pompous welcoming ceremony at the

G-20Criminal Cabal Summit in Brisbane.

Yet at the end of the day, captioned photo-op or not, one wonders how much of all the front-page drama is even remotely real when every single time the west goes on the “offensive” against Putin with “costs” just to have a convenient scapegoat for Europe’s ongoing depression, one hears in the back of one head the following exchange:

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir”

 

Vladimir Putin leaves G20 summit citing a need to catch up on sleep

Date
November 17, 2014 – 8:22AM

Latika Bourke

Latika Bourke
National political reporter

Vladimir Putin has left the G20 summit citing a need to catch up on sleep, after the Kremlin played down reports the Russian President was leaving due to the frosty reception awarded to him by other world leaders over Ukraine.

Mr Putin said the trip home would take 18 hours and he needs at least four hours’ sleep before returning to work on Monday.

Heading off: Vladimir Putin departs the Hilton Hotel after his G20 visit to Brisbane.

Heading off: Vladimir Putin departs the Hilton Hotel after his G20 visit to Brisbane. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

The Russian leader said he explained his reasons to his Australian host, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who, he said, responded with: “No problem.”

Despite Mr Abbott’s shirtfront threat setting the scene for the two leader’s encounter in Australia, President Putin departed Brisbane on Sunday praising his Australian counterpart while Mr Abbott acknowledged he had treated Mr Putin with courtesy as he was a guest of Australia.

Mr Abbott earlier this week sought Russian compensation and demanded Mr Putin apologise to victims of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, which was shot down over Eastern Ukraine in July.

The Russian President said he needed to catch up on sleep before work on Monday.

The Russian President said he needed to catch up on sleep before work on Monday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

While Mr Abbott, as host of the 2014 G20, cuddled a koala alongside Mr Putin, conservative world leaders including Britain’s David Cameron, Canada’s Stephen Harper and Germany’s Angela Merkel delivered stern words to the Russian leader over Ukraine.

Mr Abbott said the G20 and APEC forums had provided world leaders the opportunity to confront Russia.

“When all is said and done President Putin was a guest in our country, President Putin is a member of the G20 and I was happy to treat him with respect and courtesy while he was here in Australia,” he told reporters.

Mr Putin praised Mr Abbott as a “specific” and “business-like person” and credited him with creating a “wonderful atmosphere” in Brisbane.

“Our host, Mr Prime Minister, I would like to say again that he created a very wonderful atmosphere for working together. Of course, our views are not the same in some issues, but we had some very substantive conversations and I think it was helpful.

PWFY4rx

“We had a very detailed and professional conversation. Very disciplined. He made sure everyone stayed on schedule, but also provided an opportunity for everyone to say something,” he told Russian reporters before departing Australia.

A Russian journalist later informed Mr Abbott of the President’s praise to which the clearly amused prime minister replied, “I’m very happy to be on a unity ticket with Vladimir Putin on that subject”.

Mr Putin held a farewell media conference at the Hilton hotel but many Australian journalists who attempted to attend were blocked from accessing Mr Putin’s address.

The Russian leader was snubbed on arrival in Brisbane when the government sent one of the ministry’s most junior members, the Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert, to greet him.

In comparison, Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove and Attorney-General George Brandis welcomed other leaders.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/g20/vladimir-putin-leaves-g20-summit-citing-a-need-to-catch-up-on-sleep-20141116-11npvw.html#ixzz3JIKOPubC

Paul Hellyer’s The Money Mafia – a World in Crisis— copyright 2014

 
Paul Hellyer’s The Money Mafia – a World in Crisis— copyright 2014

A comment by Connie Fogal, October 2014

Hellyer sets the stage for the rationale of his book with a quote from President Abraham Lincoln:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Why should we read and share this book? In my opinion, this is Hellyer’s most important written contribution to humanity. It is his best work at pulling together crucial information of how the world now functions- who is in control, their agenda, and their power. This is an encyclopedic reference for quick access to descriptions of every form of abuse of money power exerted by the “money mafia”. Once again Hellyer eloquently sets out the deception imposed on the masses about the creation and power of money, and the exploitation of the masses by that deception. It is an excellent depiction of the “End Game” of the New World Order; i.e., the substitution of elite rule for democracy.

Many of us already know much of the information he presents in The Money Mafia. His presentation here is comprehensive, readable and understandable. But this book goes much further than ever before. I have been waiting for that reach.

He informs about the extraterrestrial presence and technology, and about the exploitive abuse of it and us by an elite earthly cabal. The information is necessary to help us know the steps we must take for our salvation. We need to know that sophisticated free energy exists here on earth now, that used for the benefit of all, it can restore the earth to its glory, that it is in the control of an evil cabal who withholds the technology from us while they exploit its use for their greed and power grievously harming earth and its inhabitants in the process. It was that information which compelled me to write this comment in hope of impressing on others the necessity of reading and sharing this book.

Hellyer sets out a do-able necessary action plan in chapter 14: actions for the US President, the US Congress, the G20, Ending the Great Recession, Full Disclosure, Tree Planting, 7 year Transformation to Clean Energy, Writing Off Third World Debt, Winding Up the IMF, a Tobin Tax taxing every exchange of one country’s currency for another to stop speculation in currencies- gambling, a Universal World Currency and a World Bank publicly owned by the people of the world with formula preventing undue influence by any country or region, rolling back the World Trade Organization to a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, using the Marquess of Queensbury rules for Trade and Investment, massive reduction of Defence Expenditures and Atomic Weapons worldwide, Reorganizing and Streamlining the United Nations, Limiting Executive Salaries.

Hellyer summarizes his three most important directions: return the control and creation of money to the public interest, taking it out of the hands of private banking; stop the exploitation of the earth’s fossil fuel resources in order to halt global warming; provide full disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence and their advanced technology in order to benefit the public and remove its harmful exploitation by the cabal.

My only criticism is that he does not acknowledge the role of the cabal in the devastating geo-engineering of the environment using the advanced technology at their disposal in manipulation of weather and the atmosphere causing hurricanes, storms, earthquakes, tsunamis. He has omitted reference to the deliberate spraying of harmful chemicals into earth’s atmosphere. (Look up! Look up!) He does not discuss what they are spraying or why. He does not reference the fact that weather warfare exists and is being used as a tool to tyrannize countries (and maybe is an attempt to conquer space control and extraterrestrial life.). It is no longer just, “We can bomb countries out of existence.” It is now, “We can destroy them with drought, deluge, wind, or earthquake.” A Japanese politician confirmed the use of such threats before the Fukushima disaster.

In my opinion, Hellyer’s urgent concern re global warming is flawed because he fails to recognize geo-engineering as the culprit. The calamitous environmental destruction is real and rapid! Geo-engineering is the culprit. It must be stopped.

Still, his urgent message on all other respects is on point and compelling.

In my many years of learning about the evil side of globalization, its power structure and agenda, and sharing what I learned, the common question always came back, “But what can we do about it?” Those of us communicating on the issues answered: “Learn! Be informed! Know that power is within each of us.”

A recurring response was, “Well, what does that mean? How do we find our power, and how do we use it to halt the evil overtaking the world?” I struggled with how to answer. Now I think I know. Hellyer’s The Money Mafia gives me confidence that what I think on this is the way. His information therein about visitors from “starry realms”, and full disclosure about them, and their technology, and the disclosure of the usurpation of that technology by the “money mafia” is the key.

Hellyer has connected those dots well. The power and control of this planet is totally out of the hands of responsible government. It is totally in the hands of unaccountable privatized military, and industrial and banking cartels. The source of their incredible power is the extremely advanced technology at their disposal from downed spaceships which they have co-opted, studied, and reverse- engineered for decades funded by taxpayer trillions. This is the biggest secret of all time. They use the technology in military conquest for world domination and power and greed which process is killing the earth and its peoples. Deals have been made with other world beings which our side have breached respecting the disclosure of the technology which could save this planet from the environmental destruction the military industrial banking complex is creating. The technology could be used for housing, transportation, health, energy— providing earth’s creatures with comfort and peace and happiness as exist elsewhere in the cosmos. But it is used for destruction and conquest.

Hellyer expertly presents information on the evidence of reliable sources, from military to aeronautical, to scientists, to human contactees, most of whom have been sworn to silence based on “national security”, or, worse yet, reprisals and death.

But disclosure of the extraterrestrial existence and its relevance to us has been happening incrementally over time. This book is an example of that.

Hellyer pulls no punches on disclosing who the “money mafia” are, their evil, and the fact that no powerful politician any longer serves us, the masses of the world. They cannot under “money mafia” rule! No political leader of any political stripe gets where he/ she is unless he does as he /she is told by the “money mafia”, those who rule. Hellyer calls them the Three Sisters- the Bilderbugers, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations. They manipulate, coerce, and lie to the public to accomplish their ends.

At page 246 Hellyer points out that there are two governments in the U.S. — the permanent and the provisional. The permanent is the secular oligarchy that comprises the Fortune 500 companies and lobbyists, the civil and military services, the larger research facilities and law firms, public relations firms, the international banks with close ties to the Fed, the World Treasury Department, the IMF, and the World Bank, the Bretton Woods institutions and the State Department, the information conglomerates that blur the lines between the manufacture of news, and culture and its dissemination. “These are all parts of the permanent government that holds the reins of power. It is a power camouflaged by the antics of the politicians comprising the provisional government.”

Hellyer refers to the permanent government as the “cabal”, the shadow government. He reminds us of President Clinton’s comment to a reporter that that there is a government within the government that he does not control. So, the President is not in control. Nor is the Congress in control even though it approves hundreds of billions on Black Ops that it is not even aware of.

The evil of the cabal is incredible. My information from other sources tells me that now the “money mafia” are implementing mind control on which they have been experimenting for years with HAARP and chemtrails (geo-engineering). Also, they are creating and releasing viruses to make and keep people sick and weak. Why does a patent on the Ebola virus exist in the U.S.? A sick, weak, dumbed down public will not resist because it cannot resist or make change.

Fortunes are made in mass vaccinations. There is a plan unfolding re mass compulsory harmful vaccinations in the U.S. re Ebola, HIV, Polio and other combined vaccines, vaccination cards reminiscent of Nazi Germany, and quarantine for refusal to submit. Canadians must not be smug because Canada now follows the U.S. protocol on command. There is no question that the human masses are under attack by the “money mafia”.

Hellyer juxtaposes the “money mafia” power and control with the potential for salvation through disclosure about the technology from space, and more importantly, the fact of the existence of other civilizations out there— how they live and govern. Why? Because the money mafia will lose their power and control if we learn what they know and withhold from us. They fear our reaction to their lies. But therein lies our power.

Here is the crunch. There exists a Galactic Federation. Earth is a tiny part of the cosmos but is a jewel in its capacities as a planet. Earth humans are one kind of Being. The Galactic Federation is concerned that those in control of earth are rapidly destroying it by the military use of the technology they have reverse engineered. Their rapacious use of nuclear technology is a threat not only to earth but to space.

It is said that the Galactic Federation has the power to intervene on earth to assist in transferring the power into the hands of those who will share for the benefit of all, but a policy of non interference in free will and self determination exists. We cannot sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for a knight in shining armor. We have to show our own mettle. Humans have to decide we will not tolerate the power being held and used as it is. We have to decide we do not want that destruction, and we will not allow it. We must show our intention to live otherwise, and to share the technology for the benefit of everyone, not for a few.

So, back to the fundamental question: how do we do this? Be informed! Say “No More”! The outrage of a fully informed public will terminate the “end game” of the cabal. A fully informed public will end the rule of the military /industrial /financial complex. Iceland has done it. Iceland jailed its fraudulent bankers and said NO to the IMF. Iceland is thriving.

Hellyer has taken a major step in writing this book. First, we must have knowledge. He gives us knowledge. What he and others like him have been telling us seems incredible. We must satisfy ourselves by studying the evidence presented. I am satisfied.

Hellyer tells us at page 172 to fulfill our responsibilities as citizens by going to www.paradigmresearchgroup.org and watch the proceedings until we are convinced of the reality of UFO’s and the ET presence. This is important to do because the next step of the cabal is to fake an attack from space. They can do this because they have perfected the reverse-engineering of spaceships to the extent that they have duplicated them. Hellyer advises us to ignore that whole new show as being one more monstrous deception. In so doing, he says we can finally strike out the New World Order Pretenders.

Next, I say we must follow all the other excellent, fascinating work ongoing exposing the evil in process by the power structure, like mind control which suppresses thought and resistance. Activists say that is part of what chemtrails are about (as well as climate manipulation). Orwell’s thought-police apparatus is being implemented. A conference in Brussels on this Agenda is set for November, 20 2014. http://covertharassmentconference.com/

Further, we must inform ourselves of what really happened on 9/11. At pages 167 and 168 Hellyer sets out the evidence of Dr. Judy Wood that the buildings were not crushed or pulverized, nor were they heated to the point where they vaporized. They mostly were turned to dust in midair, or dustified. This proves that a technology that can cause such a thing to happen does exist. It is a technology that is capable of providing enormous quantities of free energy. We can be free from being slaves to the energy industry. Free energy is already here, but it has been used for evil purposes, not good. The buildings did not come down because they were hit by planes. “They did not collapse from fire nor from bombs in the building,(or conventional controlled demolition),” said an eye witness. ”They were turned to powder in mid-air.”

Dr Judy Wood wrote in Where Did the Towers Go? “There were 14 survivors in Stairway B of WTC1; when the dust cleared they looked up to see blue sky and walked out on their own. If the building had collapsed, they would have been crushed. If fires or high heat had caused the destruction, they would have been cooked to death and people in southern Manhattan would have been blinded by the light from the tremendous heat required to destroy the building.”

Hellyer tells us that the events of 9/11 were “an attack on human consciousness that affected the whole planet. Hundreds of years of hard won victories against the arbitrary rule of tyrants went down the tube in an infamous day that crowned and confirmed the cult of deceit and disinformation that had become endemic since WW2.”

Why follow all this and keep learning? Because the cabal will run when they know we know; when we say, “No! No more!”

Where is the action or activism in that? The action is in the process of your will and determination being set to live a different way – a way of peace and prosperity for all, not a few. This intention that is building around the world is a way to transmit our request for Galactic Assistance in our reach for a better and different world. (My words, not Hellyer’s). Our will to live otherwise on this planet is manifested by our learning and our intention. This is how we access the Galactic aid— by peaceful intent fuelled by our knowledge, and by our refusal to submit to fear and mind control. This is not just thinking thoughts. We are acting when we learn and share and participate in conferences and talk about the truth. To refuse to stand down or submit is action. In other words, we carry on our various forms of activism! I do not deny that there have been and will be circumstances that extract a great personal sacrifice from some. The whistle blower, Snowden, has not had it easy, but his contribution has been phenomenal. How each of us deals with any efforts to force vaccinations on us may be difficult.

We must resist with knowledge and the refusal to accept the lies as we did for H1N1. We need knowledge before we can take any action wisely. Alternative medicine sites tell us that colloidal silver and vitamin C prevent and cure Ebola. The inhumanity of CODEX that limits and criminalizes natural supplements is part of the agenda of the cabal to eliminate many of us “useless eaters” as Brezinsky (I think it was) called the masses. .

Hellyer’s chapter on “The Two Americas” outlines the rapid destruction by the globalists of the good life as it was in the USA. It is a frightening depiction. At one point he wonders whether the German fascist leaders are, in fact, still in control since their best scientists and best thinkers were imported into the US at the end of WW2 to provide ongoing control. My own husband, Harry Rankin, deceased, who fought in WW2 and was wounded there twice said, “We thought we defeated the Fascists, only now to discover that they never went away.”

We face an evil future of subservience and suffering for those of the masses who will be allowed to live as slaves to the elite few, (provided the cabal does not blow up this earth in its abuse of power and technology.) The movie Elysium portrays such a world, one with the elite living off-planet in an abundance with phenomenal technology including machines that cure all diseases all of which is denied to the surviving servile masses who occupy an environmentally ravaged earth.

But it does not have to be. That is Hellyer’s message.

Hellyer’s book has motivated me to lay it out to you as I see it. We can manifest our will to live otherwise by being informed and sharing our knowledge of what is going on, and by saying NO to the cabal. We must protect our minds. We must reject the manipulation that caused one young woman in England immediately after the 9/11 event to say,“I have to give up my liberty to be free”.

We can learn how to communicate telepathically to the Galactic Federation in order to be a part of a peaceful existence of abundance on this earth which is capable of such a bounty. We can demonstrate our intent by accepting no excuses from the vapid politicians, and by refusing to be ruled by fear even though we may feel it deeply.

Despite the evil perpetrated against the earth and human beings, extraterrestrials recommend against retribution. Hellyer refers to a message from extraterrestrials to grant amnesty to the “civilians and members of the armed forces who have broken numerous laws in the course of what they were led to believe was their duty”. This comes from a book by Jim Sparks in an interview with many extraterrestrials entitled The Keepers: an Alien Message for the Human Race .

Hellyer says that the extraterrestrials admitted that serious crimes had been committed, but not by them. “They urged amnesty in the interests of disclosure,” writes Hellyer. But he says, “While a total amnesty may be appropriate for most misdemeanors, it may be considered inappropriate in cases of murder, or complicity in mass murder like 9/11 where lack of some punishment could not be justified.”

Hellyer contends that the year 2014 is the Year of Decision for Humankind. He quotes some key points from the story of Charlie Paz Wells and his brother who had been in direct contact with several species from afar. “…there are more than 80 different civilizations interacting within our solar system, all of which have gone through an evolutionary process. Now there is peace in the universe and they want to keep it that way. Earth and human beings are going through their own evolutionary process and

are unstable. Humans risk destroying themselves and their planet. Humanity is not in balance with the universe, and the universal laws that control it. The extraterrestrials explained that they want to help us realize that we are not alone and that there is a better way of living and evolving that is sustainable. But before they give us the tools and technology to continue our evolution, they need to be assured that whatever they do for us must be used for ALL humanity. Not just for those in power who will use it to further their own agenda.” Hellyer says they were told in 1974 that in 30+ 10 years we would reach our own year of decision, our watershed when we would have to change our ways dramatically or it would be too late to reverse the trend and we would be subject to great calamities.

Hellyer says, “We are writing our own history day by day, and will determine our future by the choices we make and the actions that we take or fail to take.”

From what I read and follow, I know there is much good work on-going. The “money mafia” is running hard to stay ahead of this good work which will defeat them. I think that the whistle blowers and the powerful good intentions are stronger than the “money mafia”, but only because the whistle blowers and exposers, like Hellyer, do exist. And they do. They do “blow” and they do “expose” courageously.

Many of us are paying attention. We are learning and reaching for that better way of living. We are saying no to vaccines, no to geo-engineering, no to chemtrails, no to mind control, no to private creation and control of money.

In comment I have focused on the extraterrestrial information and technology in this book because that is what resonates for me. But there is so much more here on the power structure in the world and its direction which will resonate with everyone. It is knowledge— knowledge essential to handle this watershed.

The Money Mafia- A World in Crisis is available on Amazon.com

Connie Fogal
3570 Hull St.
Vancouver British Columbia V5N 4R9
Canada

You are subscribed to this mailing list as zoso420g@hotmail.com. Please click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests.


“PUTIN” A Man of Moral Integrity or just another Puppet Playing His Part???

Putin: World War Is Inevitable

At This Point

Friday, October 31, 2014 7:35

(Before It’s News)

As the tide shifts back to war, because of winter nearing, Putin now states that war is inevitable in the following speech. The facts are that this world war is planned, it has been planned from the very beginning all the way from Pike’s letter about a world war in the 1800’s, which you can see at the bottom of this post. The planning of this war goes back further than that however. This is a biblical war that will be waged. This is the war of the End Times.

Crusaders2127 Video


As winter nears, war gets closer because of a timeline that parts of Europe will run out of resources for the winter. Russia recently enacted an embargo in the Arctic and is practically a declaration of war. The other part of this is the FACT that during this time if Ebola remains in America, which it will, then it will be able to spread just like influenza A. These are the days.

Below are the 10 main points posted by, “The Russian blogger chipstone summarized the most salient points from Putin speech as follows:

1. Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles. But Russia is prepared for serious conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests of each side.

2. All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins. There are no longer any international security guarantees at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia’s decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

4. Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.

5. Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America’s ever-expanding “empire of chaos,” and has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia’s challenges lie in developing her already vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.

6. Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image, but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure to reap a whirlwind.

7. Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable, is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia does not war—nor does she fear it.

8. Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order—until their efforts start to impinge on Russia’s key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain.

9. In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia’s power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing, but on the will of the people.

To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.”

Putin’s full speech: Video

1`

To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is ready for this; is the world?

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-together, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.

Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power center, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?  

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power center does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the center of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the center of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.   The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.  But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

we are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

So it Begins.