Connect with us

Alternative News

Marine Le Pen or Emmanuel Macron? The French Presidential Election: Nationalism, The Elite, & More

Published

on

There is a massive shift in global consciousness going on right now, and it’s being reflected in the global political landscape. From the U.S. presidential election to Brexit, it’s clear that people want change, and they’re willing to use their voting power to try to achieve it. However, can any real change actually be accomplished with the current political systems in place?

advertisement - learn more

The latest country we’re seeing this shift in consciousness take place in is France. There are technically eleven people gunning to be elected as France’s President in 2017, all of whom have expectedly opposing views. However, even the left and the right share some surprising similarities, which makes sense given the transformations these parties have endured in France and all over the world. The left wing is becoming more right and the right wing is becoming more left; the political system is reforming right in front of our eyes.

France has two candidates who are perceivably leading the race: an anti-establishment, far right, outspoken candidate, Marine Le Pen, and a centrist, progressive, globalist candidate who has ties to the big banks, Emmanuel Macron. France’s election is starting to sound dangerously similar to the U.S. presidential election we just witnessed. Though the main issues on the table seem to be national sovereignty and immigration, France’s political system affects all of us as a collective!

France Clearly Wants Change

Traditionally, the National Front (FN) party has been seen as relatively extremist, but Marine Le Pen is starting to change that. Yes, the media is still referring to her as “far right,” but she’s changed the dialect. She has some perceivably extreme views like committing to suspend all immigration while new rules are drafted if she gets into office and stating that France had no responsibility for the Paris round-up of 13,000 Jews deported in WW2; however, her speech has softened since running for office, making the far right slightly more “socially acceptable.”

Le Pen has also made some anti-establishment comments, making her seem even more similar to U.S. President Donald Trump. Like Le Pen, Trump has many conservative views, but he strangely provided a breath of fresh air for those looking to vote anti-cabal. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything these people say is morally “correct” or even honest, but it certainly provides people with the option for change they so desperately crave. Le Pen even recognizes her similarities to Trump, as she explained in an interview.

“He [Donald Trump] made possible what had previously been presented as impossible,” Le Pen told Andrew Marr of the BBC in an interview cited by the Independent. “So it’s really the victory of the people against the elites.”

advertisement - learn more

“If I can draw a parallel with France, then yes, I wish that in France also the people upend the table, around which the elites are dividing up what should go to the French people.”

Le Pen spoke to ITV at the opening of her presidential campaign headquarters, saying, “The forces at work in these various elections are ideas, forces which could bring about my election as the president of France next May.”

Those forces refer to the shift against “unchecked globalization, destructive ultra-liberalism, the elimination of nation states, the disappearance of borders.”

I’m not saying that she’s actually anti-establishment, but she has clearly made some anti-elite comments, just as Trump did during his election campaign. However, who knows if these politicians are actually against the elite or if they’re a part of it themselves. As I’m sure you know, politicians have an uncanny ability to spin words and will often lie to get votes.

On the other side of the spectrum, the other top contender is Emmanuel Macron, who exited Parti Socialiste (PS) to create his own movement, En Marche, which translates to On The Move. Macron is a strong supporter of the EU, NATO, and the UN, all of which relate to a globalist agenda. Macron has traditional progressive views, such as exiting gas and transitioning to entirely renewable energy, but his socialist policies don’t cross over into the business community. His stance on the economy and proposed changes, like significantly cutting corporate taxes, has raised opposition from the left, which is why he’s considered a “centrist” or redefining the left.

A US State Department document, which was apparently prepared for Hillary Clinton in 2012, referred to Macron as “a banker in mergers and acquisitions at Rothschild in Paris,” stating that he used to work at the general inspection of finances and “could also become the top civil servant at the Finance Ministry.”

His ties to the elite bankers certainly draw an interesting parallel between him and Hillary Clinton. She held very close ties to the Rothschild’s, the elite banking family that profits off war, terror, separatism, and government leniency toward corporations. Macron’s supporters are also mostly very young and progressive, a trend we saw with Clinton.

His supporters probably think he provides a refreshing change from the staunch left side of the political spectrum. His views are still fairly left, with the exception of some points swinging more toward the right. To me, this reflects a shift we’re seeing across the global political landscape: a merging of the left and the right wings. In many countries, especially in the U.S., the left and the right wings are still controlled by “the same bird,” so to speak, or the corporations and the elite, but they’ve still traditionally always taken a firm divide.

How the Right and the Left Are Merging

The media often portrays a strong sense of duality between the left and right wings. Society in general perpetuates the division between the left and the right: We define ourselves as “left” or “right” wing voters and start to identify with a certain side. Politics has painted this tug of war picture for many years, but for the first time this polarizing view is starting to shift.

The global elite have slowly been planting seeds in the left wing, like billionaire George Soros, who helped create the Black Lives Movement in the U.S. in order to capitalize on separatism and fear. The left, which used to be defined by more progressive views and staunch equality, has slowly shifted toward imperialism and globalization. The left has slowly become more supportive of military force and “soft” power, allowing the big banks and the elite to gain more control over societies. They’ve convinced society that it’s socially acceptable to literally fight for equality, increasing violence and separatism.

This seems a little backwards: How could society be tricked into thinking that war can be justified in the name of “equality” and “anti-racism”? Well, when you think about previous false flag terrorist attacks like 9/11 or even what’s going on in Syria, it starts to make more sense. The U.S. launched missiles at Syria after an alleged chemical attack in an effort to “stop violence,” when in reality those missiles just resulted in more death and destruction.

We’re observing a huge transition in the French political spectrum, as the left and the right are starting to merge. In some cases, you even have the far right candidates and the far left candidates preaching the same thing. For example, the “far left” candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the “far right” candidate, Marine Le Pen, both support leaving the euro, both want to either exit the EU or negotiate with them to improve treaty terms for France, both support social policies to benefit workers and low income individuals, both want to improve relations with Russia, and both have discussed leaving NATO. Perhaps their greatest similarity is that they both have been categorized as “sovereignists.”

The primary difference between these two candidates is their stance on immigration. On one end of the spectrum, you have Le Pen, who views immigration as being “not an opportunity for France, it’s a tragedy for France,” whereas  Mélenchon apparently has a more welcoming approach toward immigration and refugees. Of course, this is a very delicate issue in Europe right now, as we’ve seen some countries seriously struggle as a result of opening their doors to refugees. Though I strongly support equal rights and oneness, given the current state of the world, it’s clear that immigration policies are needed (though they shouldn’t be too strict, either).

When it all comes down to it, national sovereignty is going to play an integral role in the upcoming French election. Many people feel that France has lost its national sovereignty to the European Union, which is understandable. The EU has tried to implement some questionable trade deals like the TTIP and has strong ties to the financial elite. It’s no wonder people like Macron support the EU and that some people are questioning the EU’s overall antics (read more about the EU in our CE Brexit article here).

Nationalism and patriarchy don’t have to be “bad things,” either. In the past, they’ve been tainted with an air of separatism. That’s because historically people have used patriarchy to defend their support for war and foreign invasion, which is where the problem with patriarchy lies. However, there’s a big difference between appreciation for your culture and identification with it.

It’s perfectly fine to appreciate and be grateful for the country you were born in or the country you live in and recognize how that has served you. It’s a completely different thing when you start to identify with that country. Yes, you may be French, but more importantly, you’re a human being. There shouldn’t be any hierarchy when it comes to nationalism, and sometimes when people begin to identify with their nationality, separatism grows.

Why the Current System Doesn’t Allow for Significant Change

A serious issue for the countries within the European Union (EU) is that whatever politicians promise in their electoral platforms may not come into fruition because of the EU. Some people, like candidate François Asselineau, claim that there’s no way to actually improve the EU from the inside, as any proposed changes would require unanimity between the member states, who often disagree on key problems.

This is why many candidates are proposing withdrawing from the EU, just as the United Kingdom is doing now. This would allow France to actually make its own decision and implement true national sovereignty and democracy. It could be argued that the merging of the left and the right in France is because of the EU, and that without it there could be a more distinguishable left and right (though I believe it is more so due to the elite’s agenda, but the EU probably plays a role).

Another issue is that many people only vote to ensure that one candidate doesn’t win; for example, many people may have voted for Trump to ensure Clinton didn’t win. This happens all of the time; even I’m guilty of it over here in Canada. I once voted in order to keep Stephen Harper out of office, despite the fact that I didn’t wholeheartedly support any of the other candidates. It’s called “strategic voting,” and it’s more of a problem than it is an actual strategy. In this case, people may vote for Macron to keep Le Pen out of office, or vice versa.

If we’re just voting for whatever candidate we dislike the least, how is that truly reflecting our wants and needs as a society? Shouldn’t we be voting for the people we love and actually want deciding the future of the countries we live in?

Unfortunately, politics is largely about the image that the media paints of the politicians and their status quos, making this more difficult to achieve. We’ve seen how much the media convolutes elections by twisting information, falsifying polls, and expressing biases toward candidates, particularly during the last U.S. election. Globalist media is already getting involved in France’s presidential election, with some outlets even preparing to place the blame of electing a “sovereignist” candidate on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As previously mentioned, some of the “sovereignist” candidates want to restore relations with Russia, and news outlets have been quick to jump on this, claiming that Putin allegedly supports only those candidates. For example, on April 20, the EU Observer published an article titled “Russia-linked fake news floods French social media,” which addressed articles that were allegedly influenced by Russia and supported only the “sovereignist” candidates. However, the EU Observer’s article could be argued as being just as politically biased as the articles in question.

You could draw comparisons here to the U.S. election, as Western mainstream media blamed Russian hackers and alternative media sites for Trump’s victory. There were countless accusations of fake news sites spreading misinformation about Hillary Clinton and even the CIA claimed Russia hacked into the system, causing Clinton to lose. It’s ironic that alternative media was blamed for taking an independent stance and actually reporting on Clinton’s wrongdoings, instead of covering them up like many mainstream media outlets did. In reality, news stations that report using a political bias hold far more influence over the elections than independent journalists.

Public opinion in the West is already preparing for protests against whoever the winner will be of this year’s French election. This may also influence people’s votes; for example, people may not vote for Le Pen in fear of the future protests against her, or any other candidate for that matter. If we’re already anticipating significant protests, doesn’t that mean that whoever’s voted in clearly doesn’t reflect a true democratic election?

The issue isn’t even necessarily with the candidates, it’s with the entire system, which includes us as a collective. It was never about Trump versus Clinton, just like it’s not about Macron versus. Le Pen. This is the type of mindset that keeps us in the system, forcing us to go in circles and further perpetuating the “warship authority” mentality.

We can’t simply blame authority for not handing us ideal presidential candidates, because the system is designed to serve authority and the elite, not the people. However, in some way, all of these candidates are a reflection of us, whether you like the candidates or not. The same can be said for the U.S. presidential election. America got the President it “deserved,” because when you act like slaves searching for a single leader to follow, you get a master like Trump in return. This can be applied to many countries that follow this “democratic system,” including France.

It wants us to polarize our beliefs and choose one opposing side of the spectrum, and then help the side we choose destroy the other side. Regardless of whom you choose, you are rendering yourself powerless because you are gifting your power to others. This system certainly served an important purpose a long time ago, and many people considered their right to vote empowering at that time; however, that has shifted over the years, largely due to the elite’s involvement. Democracy gives you the illusion of freedom and “human rights,” because only without an overarching, elite-serving government could you truly have these things.

Even if your involvement is simply a product of indoctrination and adhering to social norms, if you’re voting within the system, then you’re enabling the system. As long as you support the “religion” of government, this system will continually be perpetuated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Multiple Investigations Reveal Secrets About Where US Tax Dollars Are Really Going

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple investigations and testimony from high ranking sources have discovered that trillions of dollars of our tax dollars are going towards programs that not even the highest ranking people within government know about.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we made to believe our taxes dollars are going towards necessary services that favour the population? Why do we so easily trust our government and take their word for it when evidence says otherwise.

It’s amazing how much money is scraped off of each paycheque, and how much money multiple small and big businesses pay. We are told that it’s necessary, that this is the money going towards various programs that are responsible for building our schools, employing people for necessary services and infrastructure, among many other things. It’s truly amazing how much money governments rake in from taxes.

It’s an astronomical amount that makes it hard to see how all of the money is allocated to services that are in the people’s favour, instead of the possibility of it going into the pockets of certain politicians and elitists, among other places. Yet we are heavily taxed, and reasons for taxation are constantly brought up and justified, almost as if to imply that there really is no other way of changing things and doing things differently here on planet Earth. Our potential is huge, yet we are convinced that money and taxation are our only ways to operate.

Sure, some of our taxes are going toward various needs and services we deem necessary, but how much off of our paycheques is really required for this? Judging by the amount of money that has been poured into black budget programs, it doesn’t seem like much is needed at all, and this is because trillions upon trillions of our tax dollars are actually going towards projects that the public has absolutely no idea about.

These projects are known as ‘black budget programs,’ which include Special Access Programs (SAPs). Within these we have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘deep black programs.’ A 1997 US Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.”

Not many people have investigated the black budget world, but The Washington Post revealed that the “black-budget” documents indicate that a staggering 52.6 billion dollars was set aside for operations in fiscal year 2013.(source) More recent investigations, however, reveal a lot more than that.  The topic was discussed in 2010 by Washington Post journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin. Their investigation lasted approximately two years and concluded that America’s classified world has:

Become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. (source)

advertisement - learn more

Recently, Arkin quite NBC/MSNBC  and went public outing them as completely fake government run agencies. You can read more about that hereHere is another article we published that has links within it to documents showing the close relationship between mainstream media, academia, and the CIA.

The most recent investigation was conducted by economist and Michigan State professor Mark Skidmore, alongside some of his graduate students as well as Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development. They discovered trillions of unaccounted for dollars missing from the Department of Housing & Urban Development as well as the Department of Defense. For their research, the team used several government websites and made inquiries to multiple U.S. agencies. Much of the time they received no response and the Office of the Inspector General even disabled links to all key documents that revealed unsupported spending, according to the team.

Given the Army’s $122 billion budget, that meant unsupported adjustments were 54 times spending authorized by Congress. Typically, such adjustments in public budgets are only a small fraction of authorized spending… Skidmore thought Fitts had made a mistake. “Maybe she meant $6.5 billion and not $6.5 trillion,” he said. “So I found the report myself and sure enough it was $6.5 trillion.” – Michigan State News.

They went on to find documents indicating a total of $20 trillion worth of undocumented adjustments made from 1998 t0 2015. Our tax dollars are going directly into these black budget programs, which often cost far more than our roads and services. If this information was made transparent and public for discovery and use, it would leap all of humanity into the stars and into new discovery and exploration. The implications would be huge, and it would force us to ask more questions.

Here’s a great quote from Paul Hellyer.

It is ironic that the U.S. would begin a devastating war, allegedly in search of weapons of mass destruction when the most worrisome developments in this field are occurring in your own backyard.  It is ironic that the U.S. should be fighting monstrously expensive wars  allegedly to bring democracy to those countries, when it itself can no longer claim to be called a democracy when trillions, and I mean thousands of billions of dollars have been spent on projects which both congress and the commander in chief know nothing about. (source)

What’s even more interesting is that Fitts has been quite outspoken about a secret space program and where this missing money is actually going. She explains how enormous amounts of resources were handed over to covert operations to develop a security system of finance. This then created the CIA and a select group of people who were in charge of UFO technology. “By the time JFK came into office ready to challenge this shadow government and make space program the centrepiece of his administration, the civil war between the Deep State and the public state was in full force.” (source)

Interesting to say the least.

Deeper Black Budget Discussion On CETV

CETV is a platform we created in order to combat censorship and demonetization we have been facing over the past few years. On episode 4 of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, we discussed the Black Budget in much deeper detail. Below is a clip exploring the validity behind missing money from the black budget and special access programs, explaining where the money is going and what exactly it’s being used to do.

You can become a member of CETV, get access to the full show and many others, and support conscious media here.

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to really question what’s going on with our tax dollars. Whose pockets is the majority of money going into, and for what purpose? What are we really paying for? Secret space programs? Deep underground and under ocean military bases?  Have we just been made to believe that the way we are taxed is absolutely necessary? What is really going on here and how come nobody is questioning it?

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Investigation Shows The MMR Vaccine Was Approved Based On Small Studies Showing Disturbing Results

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A FOIA request by Del Bigtree reveals that the 8 studies supporting the release of the MMR vaccine were only 6 weeks long, used only 800 children, and led to damaging respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses to many of the children.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we ready to collectively deal with the implications of ongoing revelations of industry malfeasance with regards to vaccines that for some may require a shift in long-held beliefs?

Amidst a rash of efforts to bring forward mandatory vaccination in pockets of the United States is the recent move in New York City to declare a public health emergency Tuesday over a measles outbreak and order mandatory vaccinations in one neighborhood for people who may have been exposed to the virus.

Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the unusual order to address what he said was a measles “crisis” in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg section, where more than 250 people have gotten measles since September. The order applies to anyone living, working or going to school in four zip codes in the neighborhood. The declaration requires all unvaccinated people who may have been exposed to the virus to get the vaccine, including children over 6 months old. People who ignore the order could be fined $1,000.

Challenging Assumptions

This kind of invasive move gives rise to several serious questions, including challenging many of the assumptions that are necessarily made to justify such a move.

Assumption #1: People who may have been infected with the measles should get vaccinated immediately. De Blasio wants people who may have been infected with the measles to get vaccinated. The assumption here is that the vaccine would actually help someone who has the virus by preventing them from getting the measles or preventing them from spreading it to others. But this just doesn’t stand to reason. If someone is already infected, getting a measles vaccine will not prevent the outbreak. That’s not what a vaccine is designed for. And while the person is going through the 2-week period it takes for the vaccine to take hold, it’s quite possible that this will weaken the immune response to the actual measles infection the person has. Quarantining people suspected of being infected would be the sensible response, not vaccinating. If they happen to have the measles, no problem. Once they recover they will then be immune for life.

Assumption #2: The MMR Vaccine Can Create Herd Immunity. There is an article in the Huffington post entitled ‘I’m No Anti-Vaxxer, But the Measles Vaccine Can’t Prevent Outbreaks,’ in which Dr. Gregory Poland, who strongly advocates for vaccines, notes that outbreaks are often initiated and spread by people who have been fully vaccinated against the measles–over 50% in the case of a 2011 outbreak in Quebec. How is this possible? While this Quebec outbreak happened within a community that supposedly had achieved herd-immunity status of over 95% vaccinated, the facts are, as the article notes, that “9 per cent of children having two doses of the vaccine, as public health authorities now recommend, will have lost their immunity after just seven and a half years. As more time passes, more lose their immunity.” Therefore, herd immunity for measles is simply impossible to achieve with this vaccine.

advertisement - learn more

Assumption #3: The MMR Vaccine, in de Blasio’s words, is ‘safe, effective, and life-saving.’ The claim that the MMR vaccine is ‘life-saving’ does not stand up to simple statistics, as we detail in our article ‘Statistics Show The MMR Vaccine Kills More People Than The Measles Does.’ Whether it is effective, we have already seen that it is incapable of creating herd immunity, wanes over time, does not work at all for some people, and in some of the latest outbreaks the majority of people infected were fully vaccinated. Is it safe? This is the important question we cover in the next section.

The Studies That Stand Behind The Approval Of the MMR Vaccine

The pharmaceutical industry, as well as governmental regulatory bodies like the CDC and the FDA, assure the public that they take the safety of vaccines seriously, and that there is irrefutable science behind the notion that vaccines are safe in terms of the studies that their approval is based on.

However, a Freedom of Information Act request by Del Bigtree has revealed absolutely startling information about the studies that supported the approval of the MMR vaccines that have been injected into our children. To begin with, only 8 studies were conducted and the total combined number of children participating in the studies was only a little over 800! Furthermore, the studies only recorded symptoms for the first 6 weeks after the vaccines were given, unlike many other drug studies that follow symptoms for 5 years or more. And finally, the study revealed serious side-effects in those receiving the vaccine, including a highly significant number of participants who suffered upper respiratory illness and gastrointestinal illness, which has been linked to autism.

In our latest episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe, Arjun and I discussed New York’s mandatory vaccination order as well as Del Bigtree’s analysis of the MMR studies he received and the reason that Big Pharma not only does not want to do proper, large-scale studies on the safety of vaccines, but they also want to try to prevent other researchers like Dr. Christopher Exley from doing so as well.

You can watch the full episode of The Collective Evolution Show where we talk about this subject in more detail here.

You can go here to see the full episode of ‘The Highwire’ where Del Bigtree breaks down the MMR studies in question.

The Takeaway

The veils of illusion that have been masking the truth are lifting as our consciousness awakens. Transparency is coming, though how long it takes will depend on our continued efforts to dig for and spread the truth far and wide.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Leaked Wikileaks Doc Reveals US Military Use of IMF, World Bank As “Unconventional” Weapons

Published

on

Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 14, 2018. Natacha Pisarenko | AP

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In light of recent events in Venezuela Wikileaks published a revealing document that highlights the fact that financial institutions are not independent, that they are owned by, and in turn own/work together with the US government to fulfill agendas.

  • Reflect On:

    The secrecy in our world runs rampant, under the guise of 'national security' when it's really because secrets need to be kept to avoid the population waking up to the tremendous amount of unethical corruption that plagues our geopolitical world.

As most of you reading this will know, Julian Assange was recently dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy. Assange has long been subjected to ridicule and character assassination by the Deep State owned mainstream media, and for one reason, it’s the same reason they’ve been wanting to snatch him up for so long.

It’s because for years he has been sharing information that the global elite around the world did not want him to share. He’s been publishing information that threatens various elitist, corporate, and political interests around the globe as well as information showing just how much the public is deceived to, lied to, and manipulated in several different ways in order to justify actions that do not resonate with the majority of people on planet Earth.

Various media outlets have been silenced, censored, and have and their revenue streams taken away, including us. This is why we created CETV, a platform to combat the censorship we are currently experiencing.

In Episode 5 of The Collective Evolution Show, we go deep into Assange’s arrest. The purpose was to explore the deeper details behind why Assange is a threat to power structures as opposed to being a COINTEL or psy-op as some are suggesting. We understand this position, and duke it out on our episode of The CE Show, but there are areas we must discuss with this.

I also recently published an article about his arrest, and the truth behind his arrest: What Julian Assange’s Arrest Tells Us About Our World.  We’ve published many Wikileak leaks as well, the latest one being a document exposing a “Secret Us Base on the Moon.”

I recently came across an article published on MintPress NewsIt was written by Whitney Webb is, who is a staff writer for MintPress News and has contributed to several other independent, alternative outlets. Her work has appeared on sites such as Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire among others. She also makes guest appearances to discuss politics on radio and television. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

advertisement - learn more

In her article, she references a leaked military manual on “unconventional warfare” that was recently highlighted by WikiLeaks. The U.S. Army states that major global financial institutions — such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — are used as unconventional, financial “weapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war,” as well as in leveraging “the policies and cooperation of state governments.”

She put it so well below that we have posted it below:

The document, officially titled “Field Manual (FM) 3-05.130, Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare” and originally written in September 2008, was recently highlighted by WikiLeaks on Twitter in light of recent events in Venezuela as well as the years-long, U.S.-led economic siege of that country through sanctions and other means of economic warfare. Though the document has generated new interest in recent days, it had originally been released by WikiLeaks in December 2008 and has been described as the military’s “regime change handbook.”

WikiLeaks’ recent tweets on the subject drew attention to a single section of the 248-page-long document, titled “Financial Instrument of U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare.” This section in particular notes that the U.S. government applies “unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors,” and specifically names the World Bank, IMF and The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as “U.S. diplomatic-financial venues to accomplish” such goals.

The manual also touts the “state manipulation of tax and interest rates” along with other “legal and bureaucratic measures” to “open, modify or close financial flows” and further states that the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) – which oversees U.S. sanctions on other nations, like Venezuela — “has a long history of conducting economic warfare valuable to any ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] UW [Unconventional Warfare] campaign.”

This section of the manual goes on to note that these financial weapons can be used by the U.S. military to create “financial incentives or disincentives to persuade adversaries, allies and surrogates to modify their behavior at the theater strategic, operational, and tactical levels” and that such unconventional warfare campaigns are highly coordinated with the State Department and the Intelligence Community in determining “which elements of the human terrain in UWOA [Unconventional Warfare Operations Area] are most susceptible to financial engagement.”

The role of these “independent” international financial institutions as extensions of U.S. imperial power is elaborated elsewhere in the manual and several of these institutions are described in detail in an appendix to the manual titled “The Financial Instrument of National Power.” Notably, the World Bank and the IMF are listed as both Financial Instruments and Diplomatic Instruments of U.S. National Power as well as integral parts of what the manual calls the “current global governance system.”

Furthermore, the manual states that the U.S. military “understand[s] that properly integrated manipulation of economic power can and should be a component of UW,” meaning that these weapons are a regular feature of unconventional warfare campaigns waged by the United States.

Another point of interest is that these financial weapons are largely governed by the National Security Council (NSC), which is currently headed by John Bolton. The document notes that the NSC “has primary responsibility for the integration of the economic and military instruments of national power abroad.”

“Independent” but controlled

Though the unconventional warfare manual is notable for stating so openly that “independent” financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are essentially extensions of U.S. government power, analysts have noted for decades that these institutions have consistently pushed U.S. geopolitical goals abroad.

Indeed, the myth of World Bank and IMF “independence” is quickly eroded by merely looking at the structure and funding of each institution. In the case of the World Bank, the institution is located in Washington and the organization’s president has always been a U.S. citizen chosen directly by the president of the United States. In the World Bank’s entire history, the institution’s Board of Governors has never rejected Washington’s pick.

This past Monday, it was reported that President Donald Trump nominated former Bear Stearns economist David Malpass to lead the World Bank. Malpass had famously failed to foresee the destruction of his former employer during the 2008 financial crisis and is likely to limit World Bank loans to China and to countries allied or allying with China, given his well-established reputation as a China hawk.

In addition to choosing its president, the U.S. is also the bank’s largest shareholder, making it the only member nation to have veto rights. Indeed, as the leaked unconventional warfare manual notes, “As major decisions require an 85% supermajority, the United States can block any major changes” to World Bank policy or the services it offers. Furthermore, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs banker and “foreclosure king,” Steve Mnuchin, functions as the World Bank’s governor.

Though the IMF is different from the World Bank in several respects, such as its stated mission and focus, it too is largely dominated by U.S. government influence and funding. For instance, the IMF is also based in Washington and the U.S. is the company’s largest shareholder — the largest by far, owning 17.46 percent of the institution – and also pays the largest quota for the institution’s maintenance, paying $164 billion in IMF financial commitments annually. Though the U.S. does not choose the IMF’s top executive, it uses its privileged position as the institution’s largest funder to control IMF policy by threatening to withhold its IMF funding if the institution does not abide by Washington’s demands.

Protestors hold an effigy of Captain America with a photo of IMF Director Christine Lagarde during meetings by the IMF and World Bank in Lima, Peru, Oct. 9, 2015. Geraldo Caso Bizama | AP

As a consequence of the lopsided influence of the U.S. on these institutions’ behavior, these organizations have used their loans and grants to “trap” nations in debt and have imposed “structural adjustment” programs on these debt-saddled governments that result in the mass privatization of state assets, deregulation, and austerity that routinely benefit foreign corporations over local economies. Frequently, these very institutions – by pressuring countries to deregulate their financial sector and through corrupt dealings with state actors – bring about the very economic problems that they then swoop in to “fix.”

Guaidó hits up IMF

Given the close relationship between the U.S. government and these international financial institutions, it should come as little surprise that – in Venezuela – the U.S.-backed “interim president” Juan Guaidó – has already requested IMF funds, and thus IMF-controlled debt, to fund his parallel government.

This is highly significant because it shows that top among Guaidó’s objectives, in addition to privatizing Venezuela’s massive oil reserves, is to again shackle the country to the U.S.-controlled debt machine.

As the Grayzone Project recently noted:

Venezuela’s previous elected socialist president, Hugo Chávez, broke ties with the IMF and World Bank, which he noted were “dominated by US imperialism.” Instead Venezuela and other left-wing governments in Latin America worked together to co-found the Bank of the South, as a counterbalance to the IMF and World Bank.

However, Venezuela is far from the only country in Latin America being targeted by these financial weapons masquerading as “independent” financial institutions. For instance, Ecuador – whose current president has sought to bring the country back into Washington’s good graces – has gone so far as to conduct an “audit” of its asylum of journalist and WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange in order to win a $10 billion bailout from the IMF. Ecuador granted Assange asylum in 2012 and the U.S. has fervently sought his extradition for still sealed charges ever since.

In addition, last July, the U.S. threatened Ecuador with “punishing trade measures” if it introduced a measure at the UN to support breastfeeding over infant formula, in a move that stunned the international community but laid bare the willingness of the U.S. government to use “economic weapons” against Latin American nations.

Beyond Ecuador, other recent targets of massive IMF and World Bank “warfare” include Argentina, which awarded the largest IMF bailout loan in history just last year. That loan package was, unsurprisingly, heavily pushed by the U.S., according to a statement from Treasury Secretary Mnuchin released last year. Notably, the IMF was instrumental in causing the complete collapse of the Argentinian economy in 2001, sending a poor omen for last year’s approval of the record loan package.

Though it was released over a decade ago, this “U.S. coup manual” recently highlighted by WikiLeaks serves as a salient reminder that the so-called “independence” of these financial institutions is an illusion and that they are among the many “financial weapons” regularly used by the U.S. government to bend countries to its will and even overthrow U.S.-disfavored governments.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod