Greece: Why No ‘Plan B’, Mr. Varoufakis?

by Jerry Alatalo

aaa-8Does anyone else wonder how it is that Greece and Syriza seem to have no “Plan B”: leaving the euro, Grexit, and returning to the drachma? Like millions of men and women around the world, interest in the situation in Greece leading up to the historic “Oxi” vote on Sunday July 5 has led to reading a good number of articles and listening to reports. Recently resigned Greece Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis posted a short radio interview on his personal blog days before the July 5 vote, on July 2:

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/07/02/why-a-no-vote-in-the-referendum-is-a-yes-for-a-proud-greece-in-a-decent-europe-talking-with-phillip-adams-on-lnl-abc-radio-national/

What stood out and astonished during the radio interview was Mr. Varoufakis’ talking about how European nations, upon agreeing to use the euro, were required to destroy/get rid of their drachma, lira, peso, franc, etc. printing presses. The first question which came to mind after hearing him say that was “How can he be saying that Greece hasn’t made certain to obtain printing presses to produce drachmas?” While thinking it was naive and perhaps ridiculous to make the following suggestion in a comment at Mr. Varoufakis’ blog on the printing press issue, but, since the interview didn’t reveal possible solutions, the following comment was entered:

(Note: Copy/paste from the actual post – Interesting that “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”… the comment apparently wasn’t ok’d/published)

Jerry “Peacemaker” on July 3, 2015 at 02:42 said:Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“Extremely interesting to hear that upon joining the eurozone, member states were required to dispose of their printing presses. That made certain eurozone states would find it difficult to return to their traditional sovereign currency – as enchained, captive “customers” and borrowers.
 Before joining the eurozone Greece printed and used the drachma, and the men and women who were employed in the printing of the Greek national currency obviously have the experience and knowledge of how to resurrect drachma-printing and Greece’s return to sovereign money.The people of Greece, of any nation, can choose control over their monetary affairs instead of persisting in giving that immense power away to a small group of private profit-seeking interests – who reside far away from Greece. Consult the men and women who understand drachma-printing from actually having done it, find the printing presses, and return to pre-euro sovereign money status.”

—-

So, where are you going with this, Jerry? First, it is almost beyond comprehension to explain, if true, that Syriza with Yanis Varoufakis as Finance Minister made no arrangements, all arrangements, for a potential Grexit and return to the drachma as Greece’s currency. After learning of the no-drachma-printing presses issue, left a comment at the popular blog for economists: “Real-World Economics Review” – with a link to the radio interview and the question “Does anyone know where there are some good, reliable drachma printing presses?” (comment ok’d and posted):

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/why-we-recommend-a-no-in-the-referendum-in-6-short-bullet-points/

In sharing that comment, the intent was to convey the absolutely inexplicable, mind-blowing fact that Greece officials evidently did not have the physical equipment, supplies, personnel, etc. to print drachmas – a real and possibly imminent, urgent eventuality, and one that seemed completely overlooked?!

—-

Why the comment at Yanis Varoufakis’ blog wasn’t posted/made public on July 3, what effect economists at RWER who clicked the link and listened to the interview had in eventually concentrating focus/raising the printing press issue (Mr. Varoufakis resigned after Sunday’s “Oxi” vote, to the surprise of most observers), and why Mr. Varoufakis didn’t order – immediately upon becoming Finance Minister – purchase of necessary equipment for printing drachmas…. are questions which will become answered in time.

The thought that Mr. Varoufakis may have intentionally avoided preparations and planning for a possible scenario where the printing of drachmas was necessary never came to mind, until listening to journalist/author William Engdahl in the following interview – which occurred after Mr. Varoufakis resigned. Mr. Engdahl and host Ian R. Crane suggest that Mr. Varoufakis, by failing to make certain the Greece government had a workable “Plan B” should negotiations sour to the point of exiting the eurozone, is perhaps guilty of high treason.

Mr. Engdahl points out that Yanis Varoufakis was, in his view, a “Trojan Horse” who made sure there was no “Plan B”, and gave him credit for “doing his job of pretending to be a liberal”, giving Europeans and Greeks an impression of Greek government incompetence.

It’s hard to argue with William Engdahl’s analysis. Upon listening to the radio interview where Yanis Varoufakis talked about having no drachma printing presses, most listeners were probably shocked and perplexed that such an obvious potentiality hadn’t been accounted for.

Greeks’ return to the drachma would most likely lead to a domino-effect of nations in the eurozone – and around the Earth – emulating Greece and taking sovereign control of their monetary systems.

That means truly enormous, unprecedented, historic global change.

———-

William Engdahl article:

http://journal-neo.org/2015/07/03/what-stinks-about-varoufakis-and-the-whole-greek-mess/

(Thank you to Ian R Crane at YouTube)

Advertisements

William Engdahl On World’s Great Challenge.

by Jerry Alatalo

aaa-44Alphabet As someone who admits to being interested in the taboo-in-public subjects of politics and religion, it was only natural to come across geopolitical analyst William Engdahl – at least for the politics part. Since coming late to the “internet dance” in 2011 and obtaining a computer for the first time, Mr. Engdahl has become a source of information on what is occurring in the world unreported by corporate media. He comes across as an honest, serious man who has developed a loyal attachment to discussing the truth of world events. He talked to Sean Stone a few weeks ago and that interview makes up the body of this post.

In response to recent years’ global transition from unilateral, dominated by United States/western nations to multilateral, more-evenly distributed economic power reality, William Engdahl sees that American oligarchy is losing its influence everywhere, and using destabilization through violence to regain power. His view is that the so-called Arab Spring became designed to create disorder in the Middle East and militarize the region as an effort to regain influence, economic power, and banking/corporate control in that land of energy riches.

The most astonishing statement made by William Engdahl during the interview conveyed his perception that World War III has already begun and being fought. In line with historical wars and violence, today’s wars are all about power and wealth, namely control and profit of Earth’s abundant natural resources. In 2015 the world’s most powerful businessmen and women compete for markets, sales, and profits in all nations and regions, and, unfortunately – because war has yet to become eradicated as a business tool, strategy and tactic – the competition still at times becomes very ugly. And so coinciding with history innocent men, women and children make up the highest percentage of victims.

The theory that wealth-concentrating institutions – the largest banks and those who own them – are the nerve/epicenters from which final decisions on war and peace originate has in recent years and decades become more widely accepted – especially since the internet has freed human beings by providing them access to sources with relevant information. Mr. Engdahl illustrates that growing awareness in describing the 2011 NATO destruction of Libya, suggesting that Libyan leader Gaddafi, killed shortly after the NATO air bombing campaign, was planning with other Middle East / African leaders to set up an Islāmic bank independent of the dollar.

Engdahl’s analysis is that Libya, before the country’s destruction and Gaddafi’s death, had one the continent’s highest standards of living and that “reports” of its citizens’ impending slaughter was a cover for military operations focused on stopping the planned Middle East/Africa independent-of-the-dollar banking system from becoming reality. He perceives what happened in Libya (“bombing Libya into the stone age”), along with war and violence in Syria begun after a $multi-billion pipeline deal was struck in 2011-12 between Iran, Iraq and Syria to transport Iranian natural gas to Europe, as the results of “mental breakdown of an élite who thought they were gods”.

Sean Stone asked Mr. Engdahl for his thoughts on Russia and the Rothschild “international financial octopus”. Engdahl responded by pointing out that Vladimir Putin is “not a friend of Rothschild”, that during the time of Boris Yeltsin the Russian central bank went from state-owned to private-interest owned, and that Putin’s push for state-control of Russia’s central bank is a major cause for sanctions against Russia, including pressure and International Monetary Fund (IMF) “shenanigans” applied to major Russian companies like Gazprom. So, Russia’s movement to create a public/state central banking system, a choice for self-generated credit issuance and away from Wall Street and City of London control of credit through international currency exchanges, should, in Engdahl’s view, be seen as a major reason for economic warfare in the form of sanctions.

Engdahl went on to say that Russia needs to “clean house with all the US-educated finance ministers and bureaucrats” left over from governments before Putin became elected president, and focus on refining the country’s basic financial infrastructure. After Sean Stone brought up Crimea Engdahl responded, saying that Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet has been in Crimea for 200 years (Russia’s only warm water base and access to the Mediterranean), and that “if lost, a catastrophic military defeat”. The interview didn’t get into examining how the situation in Ukraine came about, why, and/or what factors fueled the events starting in November 2013. Early 2014 Maidan protests, then violence and sniper killings in February 2014 led to Viktor Yanukovich fleeing the country and a transition government, civil war resulting in (some estimates as high as) 50,000 deaths, and one million internally displaced or leaving the country.

Can Crimea tensions become resolved? A proposal for a solution.

Engdahl suggests the Russian naval base as a factor, implying a plan to remove Russia’s military entirely from Crimea and establishment of a NATO base in its place. As Crimea remains a source of significant tension, and each “side’s” narrative out of the discussion, a personal reflection related to possible resolution of the Crimea issue came to mind. Without clear understanding of exactly how large a factor Russia’s centuries-old naval base in Sevastopol/Crimea was and/or remains in the Ukraine situation, Ukraine leader Petro Poroshenko has stated in recent remarks that regaining Crimea is a goal of his government. Therefore war over the peninsula remains as a threat to peace.

Many articles, discussions, and studies have manifested since the situation in Ukraine has developed and become a major international news story. Those who have followed events in Ukraine are well aware of the verbal agreement over East Germany between Gorbachev and Bush that “NATO will not move one inch to the east”.  The same men and women who have followed events are aware that the verbal agreement was broken, that NATO has moved to the east, and by a lot more than one inch. Is it possible that a treaty signed – not verbal – between Russia and Ukraine guaranteeing permanent maintenance of Russia’s navy fleet in Sevastopol would resolve the Crimea issue? Such a proposal, negotiated in good faith with the expressed goal of creating an agreeable compromise on Crimea could, depending on the real threat to peace Crimea presents now, lead to great reduction or total elimination of tensions holding the potential for developments leading to war.

Since the Russian naval base has existed and operated in Crimea for 200 years, is there any reason for the government in Kiev, the European Union, or the United States to oppose talks between Ukraine and Russia focused on a peaceful compromise agreement over Crimea? If all parties support talks toward that end, Russia – if actions leading to the Crimean people voting to rejoin the Russian Federation were completely motivated by belief that loss of the naval base was a real possibility – becomes satisfied by keeping the naval base. Ukrainians are accustomed to having the base in Crimea after 200 years, so essentially for them it’s life as normal – a satisfactory condition most Ukrainians would like to return to.

Perhaps a compromise on Crimea has become unachievable, beyond the point of no return – the way things are and will remain. It could be the best people can hope for is that Mr. Poroshenko lets Crimea and its people go their own way – that he wisely chooses peace over war.

“Neocons are stupid people, pardon me for being blunt. Stupid in the sense that neocons don’t think through their actions”.  Mr. Engdahl asserts that the United States, Israel and other factions are using the Islāmic State – “certainly no caliphate” – to get back into Iraq militarily, and to get into Syria militarily – “which hasn’t been possible up until now”. He sees creation of the Pentagon’s Africom/African command in 2008 as an explicit effort to “get the Chinese out of Africa by hook or by crook”. Destabilization of Sudan led to the break off of Southern Sudan into the Republic of Southern Sudan, and “fabricated terrorism” became used to wrest control of oil the Chinese were pumping out of the ground there. Engdahl told Stone the Chinese aren’t naive, and, after traveling to China ten times in recent years, “they have many problems, but certainly aren’t naive when it comes to protecting Chinese interests”.

He sees a relationship between Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Chinese being very active in making deals with the Goodluck government, which was just replaced by a former military general. He links other destabilization operations in Africa as “directly to do with strategic denial of stable long-term economic relations with China, with Russia, with other countries, and the EU partly as well”. At this point in the interview, William Engdahl shared his view that “we’re in World War III”, responding to Sean Stone’s question “Do you (predict) hot war with China and Russia, or will it just remain proxy wars, which people see as local?”

“It’s (World War III) in its early stages – how that’s resolved, that’s the next question the world has to address”. He describes the economic and financial sanctions against Russia as “a form of de facto declaration of war”, and the coup d’état in Ukraine as (quoting a Rand official) the “most brazen coup d’état in U.S. history”. In his view, Ukraine’s crisis was engineered to bring about chaos leading to severing of ties between Russia and Germany, France, Italy along with other nations in the EU, in response to increasing isolation of the United States, Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

After more revealing talk on Monsanto, GMOs, China’s ignorance in welcoming agribusiness methods of food production, its eventual “waking up”, color revolutions directed at China and related details, Mr. Engdahl ended the interview by saying that a coup d’état has taken place in America, Americans have become “hypnotized”, and that an outside force is needed to snap them out of it.

Listening to analyst William Engdahl as he shares his viewpoint on world events could be described as an almost masochistic form of activity. His view that World War III is in its early stages and underway, and that resolving it is the world’s next challenge to address, is painful to consider. Perhaps banning the use of war, destruction, and killing our brothers and sisters to conduct business on this Earth is a good place to start.

****

(Thank you to TheLipTV at YouTube)

Ukraine: The Fierce Urgency Of Now.

Posted April 21, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“I believe unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final say in reality.”

– Martin Luther King (1929-1968)

peace pipe 222The phrase “The fierce urgency of now” was a result of original thought by Martin Luther King (MLK), right before he was assassinated on the 2nd floor of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee in April 1968. Reverend King had the idea while trying to decide on his next actions during the Civil Rights struggle at that time. From afar, one could imagine the situation he was in, most assuredly he had received death threats warning him to step down and out of the picture or risk great personal harm.

Dr. King had suffered backlash from the American public for his outspoken condemnation of the Vietnam War, fuelled in no small measure by seeing photographs of death in Vietnam brought back a young reporter, who would later become an attorney representing the King family after MLK’s death – William Pepper. William Pepper recounts decades later that, after he handed the photos to Dr. King, MLK was moved to painful tears and great, great sorrow. Those photos were probably the factor most responsible for MLK’s decision to speak out strongly against the war, and militarism with its’ enormous expenditure.

William Pepper was asked by the King family many years after MLK’s death to talk to the alleged assassin, James Earl Ray, he did so because of his close relationship with Dr. King in the months before his murder, talked to Ray for four hours and walked out of the prison knowing Ray was not the assassin. In a 1999 civil, real trial, Mr. Pepper convinced a jury that Ray was innocent, the man who owned a grill across from the Lorraine Motel was 30% responsible, and the U.S. government along with Memphis Police Department were 70% responsible for Dr. King’s murder.

No United States media group of any significant size had any reporters in the courtroom or reported on the historic verdict of the jury. No history books read by America’s schoolchildren have made the corrections necessary to teach the truth. So, the murder of MLK by his own government, the murder of a man who may have taken the most powerful spiritual action in American history, is portrayed to the next generation in a false manner, leaving out the essential aspect of his 39 years walking this Earth.

That essential aspect was MLK’s decision to take actions which he knew were life-threatening but would result in more lives becoming threatened absent his decision to try and end the war in Vietnam, lead a march of an estimated 500,000 poor people to Washington, D.C. and the Pentagon, and call for a significant decrease in government spending on war. Powerful people saw the threat to a status-quo as reason enough to silence “a dream” articulated by a man who studied religion and philosophy and believed spiritual concepts could be actualized on this planet.

How does the life of Martin Luther King relate to events occurring now in April 2014? Perhaps most in Ukraine, where men and women are fearful of escalating violence leading to a civil war, or worse. One has to wonder what Martin Luther King would be saying if he had lived until today – at the age of 85. One wonders if he would have retained his original thought about “the fierce urgency of now”, and spoken out –  in contrast to Vietnam – before any major violence broke out. One could imagine him appearing with Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter calling for another look at who was responsible for the over 100 sniper murders of police and civilians on and around the 20th of February, 2014.

He and Mr. Carter and Mr. Tutu would tell the entire world that something is terribly wrong with the allegation coming from the new regime in Ukraine that Yanukovych is responsible, and that a coverup is occurring in Kiev regarding the real murderers. They would mention facts that have surfaced since February 20 such as the intercepted phone conversation between the European Union’s Catherine Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, where Mr. Paet told Ms. Ashton that it is becoming clearer and clearer that the new regime was behind snipers shooting police and protesters – snipers aiming for the head, neck, and heart – snipers shooting to kill.

They would call for a multi-national team of law enforcement experts to travel to Kiev in order to assure that there was no possibility of a coverup by the new regime.

They would tell the world about the investigative journalism report from Germany’s equal to America’s “60 Minutes” – ARD Monitor – which concluded that the new regime, not ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, was behind the massacre. They would call for American media companies to cover these newly emerged facts, because their existence if proven credible changes the entire equation in Ukraine, namely a major constraint on escalation of violence based on false pretenses. This they would call for because it is increasingly obvious that it is the right thing to do.

People around the world have to consider the almost total absence of attention being given to that massacre in Kiev two months ago. People have to wonder how it is that in those two months no American news organization has mentioned the call between Ms. Ashton and Mr. Paet, or squeezed in any investigative reports on the “Maidan Massacre” among the hundreds of hours religiously devoted to on-air broadcasts related to Flight 370 and Oscar Pistorius.

People around the world have to consider why no “news” media in America has called out Secretary of State John Kerry’s erroneous display of outrage over a supposed anti-Semitic leaflet going around Eastern Ukraine – a leaflet that has since been discredited as faked.

This writing has nothing whatsoever to do with taking “sides”, because there is only one side in ultimate reality for people to accept or deny, and that side is the human race – the one family of man. Arriving at the truth about the February 20, 2014 tragic events in Kiev will most assuredly expose for the whole world which people have come to deny that ultimate reality of one side on Earth, while identifying those who have come to accept it and love all people in the human family.

To arrive at that truth of Kiev requires enough men and women in this world to understand fully the spirit woven into Martin Luther King’s words: “The fierce urgency of now.”

“The holy ones whom God has given each of you to save are everyone you meet or look upon, not knowing who they are; and all those you saw an instant and forgot, and those you knew a long while since, and those you will yet meet, the unremembered and the unborn.”

****

(Thank you to Henning Witte at YouTube)

George W. Bush, F. William Engdahl Agree To Debates.

Posted March 22, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.”

– Ayn Rand (1905-1982) Russian-born American write.”

“Until you have become really, in actual fact, as brother to everyone, brotherhood will not come to pass.”

– Fyodor Dostoyevski (1821-1881) Russian novelist

ocean55And why not? Both men are past the halfway point of their lives, both have taken part in activities with problem-solving around the world as their inherent intention, and both share visions of creating conditions resulting in a better world for future generations. Obviously, the title of this piece – “George W. Bush, F. William Engdahl Agree To Debates” – is intended to stir the imagination. The odds of two-term United States President George Bush and geopolitical author William Engdahl having a debate are about as remote as it gets.

Let me explain the reasons that such a proposed debate between Bush and Engdahl came to the point where it is suggested here. First, if such a debate were to occur, there is an almost certain guarantee that the most important issues facing humanity would be discussed. Because the clash of ideas held by these men will occur while both men hold no weapons, such an event would rely on and illustrate the highest and noblest aspects of philosophical work. Philosophers engage in the “study of truths underlying being and knowledge”.

By agreeing to such a debate, both George Bush and William Engdahl would be delivering  a message of major import to the human race: dialogue, discussion, reason, and thought are the best, most beneficial ways for human beings to resolve differences. Former President Bush and geopolitical expert Engdahl, by agreeing to take part in debates, would set a precedent for solving human differences in a civilized, honest, and peaceful way.

Now, although a debate event involving Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl is unlikely, this does not take away from the logic of the transformative positive consequences for humanity that would come from such an event. Think about the day when, on any school playground on Earth, two young boys are exchanging ideas instead of fists to successfully resolve their differences. Does this way of looking at a Bush-Engdahl debate or series of debates open up one’s mind in a way that alters perception from ridiculous and impossible to beneficial and worthwhile?

Consider for a moment what these two men represent in terms of personal philosophy as they mirror precisely the real, on-the-ground, philosophical differences seen presently in Ukraine. The first debate Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl engage in could be about Ukraine: “The Best Solutions For Ukraine”. Now, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl surely wish to see the Ukrainian people leading lives of happiness, health, and well-being. Right?

In a very real sense, these two men would be the ideal debate candidates for discussion on world events in 2014. Their debate(s) would possibly be looked back on by future generations – written about in future history books – as the most influential debate of ideas in world history up until the year 2014. Consider for a moment how the profound contrast in world views and philosophies between Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl offers monumental potential for entire nations, regions, and large populations of men, women, and children.

Think about the good effects that debates between George Bush and William Engdahl will surely bring about. Most importantly, everywhere on Earth people will become engaged in rational dialogue that brings forth good ideas that will help to bridge divides analogous to the profound contrast between Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl. When Mr. Bush and Mr. Engdahl shake hands upon meeting for their first debate, an utterly magnificent, new, shared path will open wide for humanity moving forward.

Is one person’s unconditional love “better” than another person’s unconditional love?

As one who has listened to a number of William Engdahl’s interviews, lectures, and read a number of his articles, the video interview at the end of this post was enlightening. In this interview, William Engdahl talks about love – the first time this writer has heard him mention or write that small, yet omnipotent word. Now, to the origin of an idea suggesting George W. Bush and F. William Engdahl agree to debate.

Moments after hearing William Engdahl speak about love, the memory of former President George W. Bush’s appearance a few weeks ago on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno surfaced. While sitting next to Jay Leno a reference to George W. Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, came forward. George W. Bush told Jay Leno and America that his father’s greatest impact on him was “unconditional love”.

unconditional adj. without conditions or reservations; absolute.

absolute adj. 1. perfect. 2. complete; whole. 3. not mixed; pure. 4. not limited; not conditional; unrestricted: as, an absolute ruler. 5. positive; certain; definite. 6. actual; real: as, an absolute truth. 7. not dependent on anything else; considered without reference to anything else.

love in theology, a) God’s benevolent concern for mankind. b) man’s devout attachment to God. c) the feeling of benevolence that people should have for each other.

benevolence n. 1. an inclination to do good; kindliness. 2. a kindly, charitable activity; gift; beneficence.

So, if George W. Bush and F. William Engdahl debated, one can safely say that more understanding and coöperation would become visible on Earth. Perhaps humanity would take one large step closer to that place where it is widely recognized, acknowledged, and known that unconditional love is the same for all. If both men hold love in their hearts, each will show no hesitation and enthusiastically agree to take part in an effort to create a peaceful world.

“The thought manifests as the word; the word manifests as the deed; the deed develops into habit; the habit hardens into character; so watch the thoughts and its ways with care, and let it spring from love born out of concern for all beings… As the shadow follows the body, as we think, so we become.”

– Sayings of the Buddha

****

(Thank you to Blank337208 at YouTube)