American Resistance To Empire

Is a new Cold War called for? Definitely not. Just some wise Western leadership

jordan times
Jonathan Power

George Orwell, the author of “Animal Farm” and “1984”, was the first person to use the phrase “Cold War” in a 1945 newspaper article, written just after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He argued that “the surface of the Earth is being parcelled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy”.

He counted the US and Western Europe as one, the Soviet Union as the second and China as the third.

He concluded: “The atomic bomb is likeliest to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a peace that is no peace”.

I think he got it nearly right — or so it seems as a new Cold War erupts between the West and Russia, and China spars with the US over the South China Sea and its islands.

Of course, it is more complicated than that.

China and Russia have a fair relationship. China and the US are perhaps doing nothing more than annoying each other and the bonds of commerce and student exchanges bind both the elites and the populaces close together.

To me, a new Cold War is nonsense on stilts. Even more than the original one.

George Kennan, the former US ambassador to Moscow and author of books about how to contain the Soviet Union, always insisted that Stalin had no intention of rolling his tanks into Western Europe.

As Robert Legvold summarises Kennan’s views in his interesting new book “Cold War”, “the threat the Soviet Union posed was political, a threat accentuated by these countries’ vulnerability to Soviet subversion because of their economic frailty and political instability — a threat requiring a political and economic response, not a military one”.

In 1948 Kennan wrote, as he observed the creation of NATO: “Why did they [Western leaders] wish to divert attention from a thoroughly justified and promising programme of economic recovery by emphasising a danger which did not actually exist but which might be brought into existence by too much discussion of the military balance and by the ostentatious stimulation of military rivalry?”

It was Kennan, backed by people like Robert McNamara (who was the secretary of defence under both presidents Kennedy and Johnson and a committed bomber in the Vietnam war), who told president Bill Clinton that he was expanding NATO after the end of the Cold War in defiance of many promises made to president Mikhail Gorbachev by both US and European leaders, and that this was the worst of all possible mistakes.

Now NATO’s membership has expanded up to Russia’s border and NATO troops are deployed closer to Russia than agreed with Gorbachev.

Moreover, the anti-ballistic missile system now being installed to ward off a supposed Iranian attack could be deployed against Russia.

We forget that Russia has supported the US in Afghanistan and let American war materials be carried on its railways.

We forget that Vladimir Putin was the first to call president George W. Bush after the September 11 attack.

We forget that Putin seriously considered asking NATO for membership.

We forget that both Gorbachev and Putin at one time visualised Russia becoming part of the EU.

We forget that Russia returned to being a Christian-inspired nation that also gave religious freedom to Islam and others.

We forget the time under president Boris Yeltsin when he pushed hard to remove the barriers to human rights.

We forget the progress made under Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Putin in reducing the armoury of nuclear arms.

With the Americans, they have reduced stockpiles from 70,000 to 16,300. This ended the US-Russian race between offensive and defensive strategic nuclear programmes.

Russia with the US has eliminated whole categories of weapons. They worked together securing nuclear weapons and materials in Russia.

They placed limits on large standing armies in Europe while introducing transparency and mutual trust into their operations. (This is crumbling since the Russian interference in Ukraine.)

We forget that when Medvedev was president, he published in 2008 a well thought-out multi-dimensional plan to enhance European security.

Legvold says: “The US and Europe brushed it aside.”

In Ukraine, the US and EU self-defeatingly walked away from a compromise arrangement they had worked out with president Victor Yanukovich that could have avoided further political upheaval.

Today, we overlook that Russia is committed to defeating Daesh more than it is committed to supporting the regime in Syria.

Last year, Rodric Braithwaite, a former UK ambassador to Russia, wrote in his book: “For a decade Westerners lectured Moscow where its real interests lay, and expected it to follow where the West led. They rarely listened to what the Russians said in response. Russian concerns seemed unimportant, misguided or unacceptable”.

Is a new Cold War called for? Definitely not. Just some wise Western leadership.

Killing Mansour Renews Obama’s Taste For Taliban Blood—Afghanistan Reacquires US Air Support

[Why Has Obama Ended Afghanistan’s Air Support?]

pittsburgh post gazette

The Obama administration has granted American forces in Afghanistan new authorities to assist Afghan troops, a U.S. official said, signaling a return to broader military action against the Taliban and pulling the United States back into deeper involvement in the country’s ongoing war.

The new authorities include authorizing U.S. troops, stationed in Afghanistan on a dual training and counterterrorism mission, to begin accompanying conventional local forces on the battlefield in a way that now only occurs with elite Afghan forces. That in turn could mean greater use of U.S. air power to support those American and Afghan forces as they do battle.

But both of those actions will occur only when military leaders judge they will have “strategic effect,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss decisions that have not yet been made public.

“This is not a blanket order to target the Taliban,” the official said. “The president’s decision allows our commanders on the ground to maximize the use and effectiveness of our troops supporting the Afghan forces in those select instances in which their engagement can enable strategic effects on the battlefield.”

President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize the new measures is seen as a reflection of the deteriorating security in Afghanistan, where local forces are struggling to contain a resurgent Taliban, along with al-Qaida and Islamic State cells, that have proved a formidable force as foreign forces have withdrawn.

The changes come at the recommendation of U.S. Army Gen. John Nicholson, who took command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in March and has made recommendations to his military leaders about the best way to stop security from worsening further.

Gen. Nicholson’s request follows recommendations made by his predecessor, Gen. John Campbell, before Gen. Campbell stepped down that urged the White House to allow targeting Taliban forces more aggressively.

How widely commanders apply the “strategic effect” measure will determine the extent to which the authorities thrust the U.S. back into operations like those it conducted before Mr. Obama ended formal combat operations at the close of 2014. Since then, U.S. forces have been relegated to a bifurcated mission. One component, known as Freedom Sentinel, involves rooting out the remnants of al-Qaida and the recently established IS affiliate, while the other, called Resolute Support, is meant to advise and assist Afghan forces.

Strikes against the Taliban were largely halted when the U.S.-led coalition’s combat role ended. Limited strikes have been allowed in cases of self-defense or when Afghan forces were in danger of being overrun.

Prior to the new authorities, U.S. officials also could only authorize airstrikes to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and IS. U.S. strikes have taken place, for example, to protect U.S. Special Operations Forces operating in support of their elite Afghan counterparts.

The expansion of the U.S. mission was “fully supported” by the Afghan government, itself under pressure to improve security.

U.S. officials have insisted they are encouraged by the Afghan forces’ resilience, despite their high rate of battlefield casualties. And they point to the Taliban’s loss of its leader, Mullah Mohammed Akhtar Mansour, who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in late May in Pakistan.

Associated Press contributed.

UN Puppet Ban Ki-Moon Caves-In Once Again Under Saudi Blackmail To Defund Needy Muslim Children

[SEE: UN Capitulation To Saudi Demands Equals Partnership In Ethnic-Cleansing of Middle EastWhy Hasn’t the United Nations Investigated Saudi Arabia Funding Terrorists In Syria?]

UN removed Saudis off blacklist over threats to stop funding agency programs


File-This March 24, 2011, file photo shows United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon speaking after a Security Council meeting at United Nations headquarters in New York.

File-This March 24, 2011, file photo shows United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon speaking after a Security Council meeting at United Nations headquarters in New York. (AP)

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday he temporarily removed the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen from a U.N. blacklist for violating child rights because its supporters threatened to stop funding many U.N. programs.

Ban said he had to consider “the very real prospect” that millions of other children in the Palestinian territories, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen and many other places “would suffer grievously” if U.N. programs were defunded.

“This was one of the most painful and difficult decisions I have had to make,” he said.

U.N. secretary-generals are always subject to pressure from the 193 member nations. But in a rare rebuke, Ban said in this case some unnamed countries had gone too far, declaring “it is unacceptable for member states to exert undue pressure.”

The secretary-general was responding to what he called the “fierce reaction” to his decision, which was denounced by human rights groups. They accused the U.N. chief of caving in to Saudi Arabia and said the U.S.-backed coalition belongs on the list for its attacks on children, schools and hospitals.

Ban said he stands by his annual report on children and armed conflict, which “describes horrors no child should have to face.”

The report said the U.N. verified a total of 1,953 youngsters killed and injured in Yemen in 2015 — a six-fold increase compared with 2014 — and it attributed about 60 percent of those casualties to the coalition. The U.N. said it also verified 101 attacks on schools and hospitals last year, double the number in 2014, of which 48 percent were attributed to the coalition.

Ban said he decided “to temporarily remove” the Saudi-led coalition countries from the blacklist of governments and armed groups violating children’s rights pending a joint review of cases with the Saudis.

“We will assess the complaints that have been made, but the content will not change,” he said.

Ban did not say explicitly that the coalition could go back on the list after the review.

But the secretary-general did say that in response to concerns from Saudi Arabia and other governments the U.N. is considering if there is a better way to distinguish countries from “terrorist and extremist groups” who are now listed together on the blacklist.

Saudi Arabia’s U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi told reporters shortly afterward that “It is our firm belief that this de-listing is final, irreversible and unconditional, and when all the facts are in that will be further reconfirmed.”

He denied that Saudi Arabia used “threats or intimidation” in its contacts with the secretary-general saying “it is not in our nature to conduct ourselves in any such aggressive style.” Al-Mouallimi said the government pointed out that the Saudis were not contacted about the report’s conclusions as required, and therefore only one side was reflected, which made its findings “wrong.”

“We did say such listing and such unfair treatment of Saudi Arabia and the coalition forces would obviously have an impact on relations with the United Nations,” Al-Mouallimi said.

But he denied talking about defunding the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees “or anything else for that matter.”

Al-Mouallimi said he wouldn’t be surprised if “tens of countries” told the secretary-general that his listing of the coalition was unacceptable, citing statements from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council criticizing the report.

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said later that “both the Yemenis and the Saudi’s were consulted in early March on the content of the report.”

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner, speaking to reporters in Washington, said the United States agrees with the secretary-general “that the U.N. should be permitted to carry out its mandate, carry out its responsibilities, without fear of money being cut off.”

He acknowledged that the U.S. in the past has withheld and threatened to keep funds from the U.N., explaining that the administration believes that on issues such as protecting children the U.N. should be able “to report objectively … without fear of reprisal.”

State Subversion by Common Purpose–Empire`s new tool

State Subversion by Common Purpose–Empire`s new tool

african perspective

A New World Order

Nations are united by shared cultural values and norms including common religions. Culture is the basis of a nation.The United Nations promotes cultural diversity and lays the blame for conflict and intolerance on religion and nationalism. Therefore the UN`s goal is to abolish religion, nationalism and cultural norms. Religion, nationalism and culture are the very elements that make our world diverse. Therefore the UN is seeking to abolish diversity.The opposite of diversity is mono-culture.Which is exactly what is implied by the term one  world government or world governance as they now like to call it.

Human rights are promoted by the UN as a gender issue. Women`s rights are the main focus.As humans, our most important cultural norm is the family in which each gender has its role.If men and women no longer recognize their role then the family unit is destroyed.Therefore the UN, in promoting gender issues as human rights is seeking to destroy the family.

In order to bring in a new world order or a seemingly united world under a one world government, society must undergo a cultural revolution to change cultural values and norms – `a brave new world`. Where better to start changing society than in a school where young minds can be moulded and shaped? An experiment to radically change one of the largest nations in the world, using its children, was conducted 70 years ago in China.

Cultural Revolution


image : Li Zhensheng – thesundaytimes – Mao`s Red Army

China`s Cultural Revolution under Mao Zedong was carried out by an army of the youth who had been indoctrinated to disrespect and destroy authority. Authority for them included their parents, teachers, professionals and elders within society. Any traditional form of authority was removed. China`s Cultural Revolution turned on its head the country`s founding philosophy of Confucianism. The British imperialist Bertrand Russell was instrumental in the cultivation of a new nihilistic philosophy and its use to destroy the fabric and religion of Chinese society pre 1950. [1]


Confucianism is founded on the concept of the individual. Society or the community can only be made healthy and harmonious once each individual has reached that point for themselves. A man can only heal his family by first healing himself. Once his family is healed, the community is healed and then society is healed. But it is a process which starts with the individual as oppose to a collective process imposed on the individual.

Within Confucianism, just as in Christianity, the individual is paramount. Communism places no value on the individual, only the collective or common good.

A Political Cult in South African Education ?

South Africa is the current social experiment, a microcosm of a one world rainbow nation moulded anew from a fractured violent past.The post-apartheid government is being ridiculed for failing.The older generation is being ridiculed for failing and young people are being told that they are better suited to govern. Age and wisdom have been made redundant.

Numerous networks exist in South Africa, apparently unconnected but provably all issuing from the same source.The networks are recruitment centres for new leadership, role models and role players to perform in the re-moulding of new South African society.

One of the most prominent figures in South Africa is Archbishop Desmond Tutu who is an internationally recognized humanitarian. He is promoting change in South Africa through organizations that concentrate on the youth and creating new leadership from its ranks. The Tutu Foundation is part of the Common Purpose international community (360).

Desmond Tutu is also the patron of the Rising Global Peace Forum based in Coventry, UK which is run in association with Coventry University, Cathedral and Coventry City Council. On this forum he says that “enabled by technology, young people are righting our wrongs” and that “The good news is that we were made for collectivism, for inter-dependence and common purpose…”

Desmond Tutu says that he goes to sleep each night filled with hope because he believes that the youth of today “seem to be seized with the task of righting the imbalances caused by us oldies.”

The Rising Global Peace Forum aims at “pushing forward new ways of thinking about peace and conflict.” It appears to be a Common Purpose platform.

Common Purpose is a charity based in Britain funded by tax payer money and the following well known financial cabal :

Goldman Sachs Bank ; JP Morgan Bank ; UBS Bank ; Deutsche Bank ; Rothschild Bank ; Morgan Stanley Bank ; Price Waterhouse and others.

Common Purpose is linked to a host of other suspect trusts, foundations, think-tanks, quangos and so called charities. DEMOS is a key example. These organisations funnel political and social CHANGE policy through CP, to re-frame graduates. .

Source: UK Column – Brian Gerrish and Mike Robinson

In South Africa, Common Purpose runs leadership courses aimed at university graduates as well as established leadership. Its courses are Meridian and Navigator.

By blurring the boundaries between people, professions, public and private sectors, responsibility and accountability, Common Purpose encourages graduates to believe that as new selected leaders, Common Purpose graduates can work together, outside of the established political and social structures, to achieve this paradigm shift or CHANGE. The so called “Leading Outside Authority”. In doing so, the allegiance of the individual becomes ‘re-framed’ on Common Purpose colleagues and their NETWORK. Source : Common Purpose Exposed

Common Purpose commends itself on re-framing people`s minds. That means turning tradition on its head. It operates in Britain as a network within state institutions, councils, police, judiciary,universities and the education sector. It also operates within the highest levels of government.


Diagram courtesy of

article – `Common Purpose in the Heart of the Conservative Party`

Common Purpose functions within the social sector in the same way that Freemasonry functions in the economic and state sectors. Freemasons have a history of covering for each other and for providing for each other, having allegiance to the brotherhood over ability, community, national interest and the law – all for the greater good.

The term ‘GRADUATE’ is used deliberately so as to prevent disclosure of involvement with Common Purpose. As ‘MEMBERS’ of CP, which is more appropriate, individuals in the public sector would have to declare their interests. So strong is the Common Purpose bond, that some individuals will lie to hide information and documents considered ‘dangerous’ to the CP cause. People challenging CP colleagues have been victimised and forced out of their positions. Source :

The Tutu Foundation in South Africa promotes the concept of Ubuntuism/communitarianism, along with themes such as “accountable servant leadership.” What is wrong with a traditional term like `a good leader`? And are these accountable servants, servants to the public or servants of an ideology or a religion?

Life Orientation is part of the South African curriculum and has encompassed a number of previous subjects including religious instruction (RI) and physical education (PE). Life Orientation is described as the study of the self in relation to others and to society. That interprets as a peer review of who you you cannot express your rights as an individual.

Life Orientation promotes changing children`s cultural values and religion.

“Teachers formerly trained within the previous education system are trapped within certain religious and cultural paradigms . They are not always willing to redefine their role, especially in support of the new educational programmes (Ferguson & Roux, 2003). Very little research on the training of pre-or in-service teachers has been undertaken with regard to the processes or approaches towards children’s spirituality in Life Orientation programmes. ”

Article: Children`s spirituality in social context: a South African example by Cornelia Roux

Rene Ferguson is a professor of Life Orientation and Religious Studies at Witwatersrand University. Her focus in promoting Life Orientation, is on the apartheid era Christian nationalist education and the legacy of apartheid in religion. By her definition Christian values and national pride are associated with an extremely unjust political system from the past. She also lectures on the intersections between religious liberty, gender rights and sexual orientation.

The following is from an article in the Daily Maverick by Rene Ferguson and Meetali Jain

Training programmes need to emphasise skills such as “emotional intelligence, working in teams, managing diversity, decision-making, conflict resolution, planning, time-management, creative problem-solving, flexibility, intrinsic motivation and relationship- and communication skills”, and we could add to this list training in critical thinking.  In addition, educators must be encouraged to engage with “the new politics” of living in a globalised society, rather than insisting on “going back to the old ways.”

Sexual Orientation is now being taught in schools as part of Life Orientation.

The doctor sees a penis and Y chromosomes [when you are born] and says, ‘It’s a boy!’” says Abigail Branford to the students in her class at Groote Schuur High School. But, she tells them, despite this declaration, your gender identity may differ from your biological sex.

Branford is president of the University of Cape Town branch of the Gender and Sex Project (GASP), teaching Life Orientation classes with a difference – providing sex education, explaining power relations in society, examining identity issues and describing the effects of socialisation to students in grades 10 and 11.

The Gender and Sex Project (GASP) is about re-imagining what Life Orientation could be,” says Branford.

Nompilo Sibisi, a facilitator, says that much of what people do is ingrained in them and GASP classes challenge this. “For a lot of people it is the first time they are starting to think about it [the sex, identity and gender issues GASP covers],” explains Sibisi.

She believes it is especially important for teenagers as they are forming their identity.

Avaaz embarked on a campaign to end school violence following the rape of a Grade 12 boy at a Northern Cape school last month.

The organisation’s global campaigner, Nic Mackay, said the training of life orientation teachers was important in enabling pupils to become responsible citizens.

Life orientation teachers could soon receive training in values, citizenship and human rights if global advocacy group Avaaz has its way.

Avaaz is the largest online human rights/activist network with ties to political agendas, Multi National Corporations and billionaire philanthropists like George Soros.

Together, Avaaz and Purpose create the language and the online consensus-building tools. While maintaining the illusion of grassroots activists advocating for human rights, the core function of their public relations campaigns are outcome-based, or to help herd public opinion in order to provide a pretext for multilateral institutions like the the IMF and NATO to implement programs like economic sanctions, or military intervention.

All Roads Lead to Rome

Abigail Branford the founder of GASP, is the young and unwitting victim of a cult that is using her above average intelligence and human empathy for an agenda that is in reality seeking to destroy everything such a person holds dear. She is not only the founder of GASP but also an award winner of the One Young World organization,  led by Kate Robertson and David Jones both formerly with the French based advertising multi-national corporation HAVAS.

These individuals have now moved on to marketing a one world government.

CNN dubbed One Young World as `junior Davos`. It is the grooming ground for new world leadership.

Like members of all Cults, leaders trained by Common Purpose will be encouraged to act as a network, enable other members’ plans, work to the same rules and, one assumes, ultimately become world leaders.

Additionally, according to their ‘Ethos’ all meetings held by these leaders are under the Chatham House Rule. This is, they say, ‘used throughout the world to aid free discussion…’ They omit to add that this Rule which was inaugurated in 1927 to prevent the leaking of whatever is discussed at such meetings to the outside world, also means that they are held, as the Bilderberg meetings are, under a blanket of great secrecy.

On 3rd jan 2011 the Independent newspaper reported on the Tory Cabinet Office Behavioural Insight Team. This secretive little group has been set up to devise psychological initiatives to manipulate people\’s behaviour – also known as reframing. Interesting that this little vipers nest should be uncovered after The UKColumn recently exposed that Francis Maude MP and Julia Middleton CEO Common Purpose had been scheming to set up behaviour change in the Top 200 civil servants using the Common Purpose \’model\’. Behavioural Change is commonly linked to NLP or neuro linguistic programming. What they don\’t tell you is that all NLP carries a risk of mental illness from implanted suggestions that \’fail to take properly\’ or which conflict with existing beliefs and norms. The risk may be circa 3% of people who undergo NLP training of some form. Sounds small but when 10,000 people are receiving NLP or 100,000 school children we can expect to see numerous instances of mental illness or other mental disturbances – suicides? – such as the cluster of 39 at Bridgend in Wales.

Of course where children and adults are given NLP without their consent (it is hidden or buried in so called leadership training or self development or motivational courses) these individuals are, in reality, being assaulted. As such they have the right to claim compensation for such assault and ill effects arising as a result.

Are you happy to be \’reframed\’ by unknown people for unknown political objectives? Do we not have the right to control our own behaviour? These are dangerous psycho political experiments on the general public and children …surely they need to be stopped?

Abigail Banford, founder of GASP is a member of the thought leadership division for Panafrican Youth Dialogue.

A Thought Leadership Division is about as Orwellian as it gets.Not surprising as the Pan Africa Youth Division is part of a youth leadership program that is funded by the US State Department and operated by Meridian, a division of Common Purpose.

The Club de Madrid, a new Club of Rome

Common Purpose is putting a new thrust into African countries under a recent initiative called the Africa Venture. Their aim is to create a new African `think tank` under the auspices of a new Club of Rome. This time round the `Club` is called the World Leadership Alliance – Club de Madrid. Its objective to train new leadership across the continent is alarming for those who understand that there is nothing good about Common Purpose.

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations is now an Honorary Member of the World Leadership Alliance – Club de Madrid. He states ” You are never too young to lead. You are never too young to do what you actually believe in…From what I have seen, young people are going to change the world.” He is using Common Purpose terms, themes of CHANGE and a new world run by the youth. This is Cultural Marxism.

The Club of Rome was a think tank set up in the 1968 by among others, David Rockefeller, to promote the concept of over-population and the need to promote policies of depopulation. For good public relations it created the environmental / Green movement which today is the driving force behind COP21 and the genocidal drive to reduce fossil fuel use. The Club of Rome merged from the earlier Eugenics movement that promoted sterilization among unwanted ethnic groups. The Eugenics movement and Margaret Sanger`s Planned Parenthood were created by the same elite who fund Common Purpose and are behind Common Purpose and the United Nations Leader Program.

Shadow Government in Africa

Tony Blair is an internationally recognized war criminal. Nowhere is he better appreciated as a liar and a thief than in his home country of Britain. Tony Blair and David Cameron are both war mongers and highly destructive individuals. They are also both instrumental founders of Common Purpose.

African Governance Initiative (AGI)is a Common Purpose platform, a charity run by Tony Blair, which operates in Ethiopia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria and Guinea. Recently in Guinea, the former AGI leader has been appointed the minister of economy and finance.Malado Kaba was appointed by Pres. Alpha Conde who praises Tony Blair and AGI :

The first thing that Tony Blair brings is his expertise; second, the experts who he has put at our disposal; third, he helps us see that it`s not enough just to define priorities, we need timetables to deliver them.”