Visit BATR News the compliment to BREAKING ALL THE RULES News
news you won't find in the mainstream media
One Bank to Rule Them All: The Bank for International Settlements
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an organization that is shrouded in mystery, mainly due to the fact that the majority of people don’t even know of its existence. According to the BIS itself, the main purpose of the Bank is to “to promote the cooperation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international financial operations” and “act as trustee or agent in regard to international financial settlements entrusted to it under agreements of the parties concern.” This means that the BIS is to have the central banks work with one another to facilitate international operations and to oversee any international financial settlements. The Bank has a Board of Directors, which “may have up to 21 members, including six ex officio directors, comprising the central bank Governors of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Each ex officio member may appoint another member of the same nationality. Nine Governors of other member central banks may be elected to the Board.” BIS also has a management wing in the form of a General and Deputy General Manager, both of whom are responsible to the board and supported by Executive, Finance, and Compliance and Operational Risk Committees. However, its purpose has changed and evolved over the decades, however, it has always been a club for central bankers, yet in many ways it can aid some countries more than others. The origins of the BIS lie in the United States, specifically New York City. The individuals involved were international bankers who, despite past differences, “worked together to establish a world financial order that would incorporate the federal principle of the American central banking system.” Specifically among them were people such as “Owen D. Young, J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont, S. Parker Gilbert, Gates W. McGarrah, and Jackson Reynolds, who, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, sought to extend the principle of central bank cooperation to the international sphere.”Before delving any further into the creation of the Bank, it is necessary to examine some of the more notable of these individuals to better understand why they would be involved in the creation of an international bank. Read the entire article
Israel "Huge Oil Reserves" Found Near Syria Border
Trump Against the War Party
War is the great clarifier. The Russian move to quash both ISIS and the US-backed jihadist movement aimed at overthrowing Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad has defined the lines of demarcation between the candidates for US President in both parties, and shown us what they are made of. The issue at hand: should the US impose a “no-fly” zone in Syria, or parts of it, in order to stop the Russians from spoiling our little party? On the one side, we have the President of the United States, who – foiled by popular opinion when he last tried to massively intervene in Syria’s civil war – has apparently learned his lesson. He opposes a no-fly zone, at least for the moment. The Russian attempt to “prop up” Assad” is “just going to get them stuck in a quagmire,” he said at a news conference, “and it won’t work, and they will be there for a while if they don’t take a different course.” He went on to describe “half-baked” ideas about what to do in response to the Russian move, later claiming that he wasn’t talking about Hillary Clinton’s support for a no-fly zone – although it’s hard to take him at his word on that. Clinton "is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” he said, but "there’s a difference between running for president and being president. And the decisions that are being made and the discussions that I’m having with the Joint Chiefs become much more specific and require, I think, a different kind of judgment. If and when she’s president, then she’ll make those judgments.” Speaking of the Joint Chiefs, as a presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have to deal with the Pentagon, which is reportedly against imposing a no-fly zone – since they will be charged with enforcing it while somehow avoiding a clash with the Russians over Syrian airspace. In short, if the War Party has its way, the US military will once again be charged with an impossible task, and the Pentagon is none too eager to be blamed for the inevitable resulting disaster. Freed of the Pentagon’s restraining hand, Clinton, for her part, told a Boston television station: Read the entire article
Pentagon Changes Story On Hospital Bombing! Then Refuses To Answer Reporters Questions
President Bashar Assad Is No Great Satan
Could anyone in the Obama administration have been so slow-witted to imagine that Russia wouldn’t move hard to counter US efforts to overthrow Moscow’s ally, Syria? The Syrian war began almost five years ago by the US, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Syria’s Iranian and Russian-backed government. The result so far: 250,000 dead, 9.5 million refugees flooding Europe and Syria shattered. This is nothing new: the first CIA coup attempt to overthrow a Syrian ruler Gen. Husni Zaim was in 1949. A combination of imperial hubris and ignorance has led Washington to believe it could overthrow any government that was disobedient or uncooperative. Syria was chosen as the latest target of regime change because the Assad regime – a recognized, legitimate government and UN member –was a close ally of America’s Great Satan, Iran. Formerly it had been cooperating with Washington. After watching Syria be slowly destroyed, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, moved his rook onto the Syrian chessboard. For the first time since 1991, Moscow sent a small expeditionary unit of 50 warplanes to Syria both to shore up the Assad regime and to reaffirm that Russia has long-standing strategic interests in Syria. Read the entire article
UN Rolls Out Agenda 2030 "Global(ist) Goals"
P. J. O’Rourke on Ann Coulter: Not-So-Deep Thinking about Race, Anti-Semitism, etc.
I suppose I should cut P. J. O’Rourke some slack. Like him, I was once on the hippie-dippy left during the 60s, and I know it’s hard to get over that. But there are limits. His “She said what?” in the Weekly Standard is an important reminder of how far there is to go to have intelligent discussion of Jewish issues in the mainstream media. O’Rourke, who, it must be stipulated, is a very entertaining writer, wants to call himself a conservative. The sad reality is that he is just the sort of cuckservative who is welcome at The Weekly Standard. As James Fulford points out at VDARE, he has Utopian ideas on race, maintaining that Haitians immigrants are just as acceptable as the Irish — or perhaps even more so if they had to struggle to get here, because, after all, being aggressive enough to get here illegally means that you would be crime free, have a high IQ, and not be assertive about demanding free stuff paid for by previous waves of White immigrants. Or maybe not. The main point of this is to discuss O’Rourke’s ideas on Jews and anti-Semitism, but a few preliminaries are in order. He thinks that because the Indians got here first, that Europeans have no right to defend their conquest: She’s from Connecticut and is very upset about immigrants. I am willing to lend a sympathetic ear to people from Connecticut who are very upset about immigrants, if they have a tribal casino. But why stop at Native Americans? What about the tsunami of migrants entering European homelands? Would nativism and nationalism by native Europeans be okay? But the same attitudes and forces welcoming the displacement of Europeans in the US are resulting in the displacement of Europeans from lands they have dominated for thousands of years. And we hear the same charges of “racism” and “Nazism” thrown at opponents of immigration in both Europe and the U.S. Focusing on the tribal casinos ignores the problems facing European societies everywhere. Read the entire article
AGENDA 2030 WILL COST AROUND $5 TRILLION PER YEAR
A Nation of Liars
The top 25 American lies of all time
1. 9/11 done by Muslims.
1a. Airplanes brought towers down.
1b. Jews were not involved.
2. Hitler was evil, started WW2.
2a. 6 million Jews died in WW2.
3. Lone assassins killed JFK, RFK, MLK.
4. Iraq had WMDs, had to be invaded
5. Vaccines are safe and effective.
5a. GMOs make healthy food.
6. Chemtrails don’t exist.
6a. The weather is not controlled.
7. Qaddafi was a bad man.
8. Israel is America’s friend.
8a. Palestinians are vicious terrorists.
9. Astronauts went to the moon.
10. Children were killed at Sandy Hook.
11. AIDS came from monkeys.
11a. Ebola a naturally occurring disease.
12. Syria gassed children.
13. Russia invaded Ukraine.
14. Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden.
15. Blacks contribute much to society.
16. White people are evil.
17. There is strength in diversity.
18. U.S. elections are not fixed.
18a. U.S. Constitution still in force.
19. America has a free press not controlled by Jews.
20. Homosexuals don’t molest children.
20a. Pedophilia is a lifestyle choice.
21. Marijuana is harmful.
22. Civil war was about slavery.
23. Holistic doctors dying accidentally.
24. Fluoride helps keep your teeth healthy.
25. Jews are the chosen people.
Beliefs matter. “Ideas Have Consequences,” as conservative scholar Richard Weaver wrote in his classic of that title in 1948. Yet, for so believing, and so saying, Dr. Ben Carson has been subjected to a Rodney King-style night-sticking by the P.C. police. Asked by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” whether he could support a Muslim for president, Carson replied, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Carson was not out of the studio before the airwaves were filled with denunciations. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said CAIR is calling on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.” In the name of tolerance, says CAIR, we cannot tolerate Carson. And what does the Constitution say? Read the entire article
Eric Margolis: Media Wants You to Hate, Fear Russia
“Counterproductive”?: Russia and the Warring in Syria
The Pentagon and State Department, echoed as usual by the corporate press, have expressed “concern” about Russian deliveries of the most modern tanks, fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles and other military equipment to Syria. They call them “counterproductive,” although it’s not clear what sort of productive cause they counter.
They say these shipments–which they’ve tried to thwart by instructing NATO allies to deny delivery flights through their airspace–are likely “to prolong the war” in that tragically suffering country. Cable news anchors, with furrowed brows and glaring eyes, warn their viewers that Moscow’s stepped-up support for the Assad regime is a “worrisome development.”
Moscow responds blandly that Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have been allied to the Syrian government since the 1950s, when (like the U.S., actually) it saw the secular Baathists as a preferable alternative to Islamists throughout the region. Russia has been Syria’s main arms supplier for decades, and is (according to RT television) currently filling contracts with Damascus signed years ago.
(Moscow might add that it has maintained a naval base at Tartus on the Syrian coast since 1971, and an airbase at Latakia. These are among Russia’s foreign military basis, which you can count on one hand. The U.S. in contrast has, as you know, well over 700 military bases in over 135 countries where around 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed.) Read the entire article
PENTAGON PREPS NEW WAR PLANS AGAINST RUSSIA
US-China Relations: the Pentagon versus High Tech
Step by step, Washington is inexorably setting up a major provocation against China. Until now, the Obama regime tightened a military encirclement of China, expanding its armed forces agreements with Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In addition, it has promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a regional trade agreement which openly excludes China. Obama has ordered a major naval build-up in the South China Sea and embarked on extensive cyber-espionage of Chinese industries and the government via major US high-tech companies, as revealed by Edward Snowden in his release of confidential NSA documents.
As President Xi Jinping prepares for his first US visit as China’s leader on September 25, with the aim of extending economic ties between Chinese and US business (especially with the high tech corporations in Seattle and Silicon Valley), the Obama regime has threatened to impose a series of punitive sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals for ‘cyber-espionage’, essentially undermining the purpose of his trip.
Characterizing the Chinese as ‘cyber-thieves’ and imposing sanctions on Chinese businesses on the eve of Xi’s visit will be justifiably seen as a deliberate humiliation and a provocation, designed to treat China as a mere vassal state of Washington.
This will force the Chinese government to retaliate on behalf of Chinese businesses – and President Xi is fully capable of imposing retaliatory sanctions against multi-billion dollar high tech US corporations, which had been flourishing – up to now – in China.