Blog


 

 

I can be contacted via the Events page of this site.

Terry Boardman

9.6.2016

RECOMMENDED !

For sober and thought-provoking comment on the subject of Britain’s EU Referendum, please see the following two essays by ANDY THOMAS:

EU or Not EU: Deciding With the Inner Voice and

EU or Not EU: Reasoning the Issues 

as well as responses to those essays and further thoughts on the EU vote by Andy at his website: 

http://truthagenda.org/2016/06/07/responses-to-articles-and-further-thoughts-on-the-eu-vote/

6.10.2014

My translation of LUDWIG POLZER-HODITZ – A European:

A Biography by T.H. Meyer

has been published today by Temple Lodge

This detailed study by Thomas H. Meyer of Basel of  one of Rudolf  Steiner’s closest esoteric pupils, Count Ludwig Polzer-Hoditz (1869-1945), a man who was especially involved with the political issues of Central Europe and with the origins of Social Threefolding as well as with karmic research, was originally published by Perseus Verlag (Basel) in German in 1994. This translation was made from the revised and expanded 2nd edition of 2008.

http://www.templelodge.com/pages/viewbook.php?isbn_in=9781906999643

http://covers.booktopia.com.au/150/9781906999643/ludwig-polzer-hoditz-a-european.jpg

21.8.2014

Interview with Sergei Glaziev

Extensive outlay of the thoughts of Putin’s close collaborator and advisor :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cikvqdMRTTA

 
“Listening between the lines”, we can note that Glaziev, in his references to ”Lisbon to Vladivostok” and the context in which he speaks of this, is very aware of that which the geostrategists of the British Empire 100 years ago (e.g. Halford Mackinder) were most afraid of, and also their successors in the USA today (e.g. Zbigniew Brzezinski) : the possibility of real economic and political/diplomatic/military  cooperation between Russia and Europe (especially, but not only, Germany). Furthermore, there is the even greater challenge to USuk power from Europe-Russia-China (trans-Eurasian) links, a challenge which Glaziev is clearly also aware of and striving for. He knows that USuk are currently using Ukraine as a hammer to break the growing Europe-Russia economic links; he can be sure that after separating Russia from Europe, USuk will turn to try to break  – by one means or another – the Russia-China links.
Unfortunately, Glaziev nowhere  – in this interview at least – reveals his thinking to be anything other than thoroughly materialist.

19.3.2014

The Ukraine Crisis and the ‘Eastern Partnership’

In response to Russia’s absorption of Crimea, some voices in countries that were formerly part of the USSR and are now ‘independent’ are reacting irresponsibly by calling for action by NATO. They talk about Czechslovakia and 1938 and forget what happened 6-9 August 1945. This is not 1938; we now have nuclear weapons and Cuba in 1962 should have taught us the folly of playing nuclear poker with the very exisatence of mankind.

The Ukraine crisis began in late November 2013 when President Yanukovych of Ukraine rejected the Eastern Partnership Association Agreement with the EU and opted instead for an agreement with Russia. That prompted the Maidan demonstrations in Kiev that focused especially on issues of corruption. But soon the demonstrations were joined by Far Right elements and the violence increased, reaching appalling levels in February 2014. But what was the EU Eastern Partnership – a project supposedly devised by Poland and Sweden – actually for? In the autumn, before the protests got seriously underway in Kiev, the following two articles appeared from Lithuania:

http://www.tspmi.vu.lt/tinklarastis/2013/10/tomas-janeliunas-the-main-advocate-of-the-eu-eastern-partnership-programme/   Note the reference to Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard here.
 
http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/50145/kirkilas-eastern-partnership-dilemma-the-eu-or-russia-democracy-or-autocracy-201350145/   From Sept 2013:

For Lithuania, given the country’s European integration experience, the Eastern Partnership has naturally become the No 1 priority of its EU Presidency. Lithuania strongly holds on the position that these countries should be helped to make the ‘right’ decision towards Europe and given a credit of trust in advance, especially now, when Armenia might be lost to Russia’s geopolitical project. Demand or “waiting and seeing” strategy is no longer feasible, if Europe does not want to lose the other three.

The major battle is now for Ukraine (democracy ranking 80th). Georgia and Moldova will likely follow the pattern afterwards. Therefore, Lithuania hopes that during the Vilnius Summit of Eastern Partnership the EU Association Agreement will be signed with Ukraine and the Free Trade Agreements will be initialled with Georgia and Moldova.

Zbigniew Brzezinski in his famous book on Eastern Europe ‘The Grand Chessboard’ states, that “with Ukraine Russia is an Empire, without Ukraine – it’s not. The politicians in Russia took it very literally and doing everything in their power to keep Ukraine in their sphere of influence”. With Ukraine Russia is an Empire, without Ukraine – it’s not.

 

And now from the horse’s mouth:

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21590585-success-eastern-partnership-depends-ukraine-playing-east-against-west  23 Nov 2013 (note the date – just before the Maidan demos got going)

 From the “Charlemagne” section: “Playing East against West” “The success of the Eastern Partnership depends on Ukraine”

“Perhaps not since the end of the cold war has Europe hosted such a raw geopolitical contest.”
(Nb Malcolm Rifkind this morning on BBC radio said: “not since 1945….”)

 
IN JUNE 1709 Peter the Great fought a decisive battle against the Swedish king, Charles XII, at Poltava, in what is now Ukraine. Ukrainians fought on both sides. Ivan Mazepa, a Ukrainian Cossack Hetman, had sided with Sweden in a quest for Ukrainian independence. But the battle ended in Sweden’s defeat: Russia swept westward, dominated all of the Baltics and turned Poland into a satellite.

On November 28th the heads of European Union member states will gather in Vilnius, Lithuania’s capital, for a summit of the “Eastern Partnership”. This project was championed by Poland and Sweden in 2008 as a way of engaging with six former Soviet republics (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia) after Russia blocked Georgia’s and Ukraine’s path to NATO. The success or failure of this venture depends on whether Ukraine, by far the largest and most important of the six, signs an association and free-trade agreement with the EU.

Radek Sikorski and Carl Bildt, the foreign ministers of Poland and Sweden, have put their reputations on the line. Ukraine is of particular importance to Poland, for historical reasons, but also as an emblem of Poland’s dominant role in eastern Europe. For Mr Bildt, signing the agreement with Ukraine is a test of Europe’s pulling power and its ability to enact its own foreign policy…Losing Ukraine to Europe has long been a Russian nightmare. Although Ukraine declared its independence 23 years ago, Russia has never fully internalised it.
 
As Zbigniew Brzezinski, national-security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, explained two decades ago: “Russia can be either an empire or a democracy, but it cannot be both …Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.” The “loss” of Ukraine would push Russia’s western border back to where it was in the 17th century. It would also make a mockery of Mr Putin’s project for a Eurasian union and his mission as a gatherer of Russian lands….[final sentence:] Even if the Swedes and Poles triumph in Vilnius, they would be foolhardy to celebrate.

 
[As the writer well knows, it was not so much Sweden or Poland that were seeking to triumph in Vilnius, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski and his comrades. - Terry]
 
[I've just heard Poland has called for a meeting under NATO's self-defence clause; BBC is now discussing NATO 'hard power' options. NATO likely to send forces to eastern Poland: "the Russians only respect military demonstrations of red lines" - Terry]

It’s always worth revisiting Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard (1997)…. I did so again recently, and the sheer level of subtle and not so subtle vitriol and venom against Russia that breathes throughout the whole book struck me again. It’s worth watching the man in action here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/audio-video/foreign-affairs-live-featuring-zbigniew-brzezinski 

In the article in Foreign Affairs Sept 2009 which this video interview is referring to, Brzezinski in 2009 here talks about the need for a “cooling off period” after the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia before EU/NATO moves are made in the direction of Ukraine.  Was that cooling off period 2008-2013? Did  Brzezinski actually have input in the formation of the Eastern Partnership concept? He writes in the article: “for promoting and consolidating positive change in the East”  the Eastern Partnership …could very well be an effective instrument…”
 
Putin and his advisers are under no illusions that ZB was behind the spirit of the Eastern Partnership if not the actual concept itself:

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-mania-ukraine%E2%80%99s-euromaidan-9636
Putin adviser Sergei Glazyev writes:

Despite the fact that Ukraine’s participation in the Common Economic Space with Russia is natural and vital for the development of Ukraine’s economy, culture and education, it is being opposed by the anti-Russian policy of Washington and its NATO allies in Kiev. This policy is steered by Zbigniew Brzezinski who convinced the American geopolitical machine that Russia could never return to its Great Power status without Ukraine.

 
The main problem is the nature of the EU itself. It is not ‘European’ and it is not a bridge; it is a sub-western* construct  – a transatlantic superhighway – serving the transatlantic interests very capably presented through Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997. Those who see through the EU project have to decide whether they feel it should be accepted as such and that the attempt could be made to metamorphose it into something ‘good’, or else, that it should be scrapped and Europeans begin again with an altogether different form of associative community. Personally, I’m not convinced that the former is the way to go. It seems to me like it would be an attempt to pour ‘new wine in old wineskins’. A real alternative has been available to Europe for almost 100 years since Rudolf Steiner first spoke about the threefolding of the social organism.
 
* ‘sub-western’, as in ‘subordinated’

=====================================

7 May 2013

REISSUE of my first book  MAPPING THE MILLENNIUM – Behind the Plans of the New World Order

My first book Mapping the Millennium – Behind the Plans of the New World Order (original cover shown on this page) , first published in 1998 by Temple Lodge Publishing of London, out of print for the last few years and hard to come by, was re-issued by the same publisher this month, May 2013. It is available via the usual outlets price £13.99.

Book Cover for MAPPING THE MILLENNIUM

========================================================

SANDY HOOK

You may have seen this already.
http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=32818
Very good thread. Watch especially The Sandy Hook Shooting Fully Exposed

Note also that this on the page
Via: NBC:

“The weapons used in Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., were legally purchased and registered to Nancy Lanza, the mother of the gunman, Adam Lanza, two law enforcement officials told NBC News.The gunman was clad in black and used two 9mm pistols to kill 20 small children and six adults at the school. It was unclear how many shots were fired there”

is DIRECTLY contradicted by the words of the Medical Examiner in the first video on the Cryptogon page  who said that a rifle was used in the killings.

By the way,  14 December was the day of the fatal attack on Kaspar Hauser who was born in 1812, 200 years before. You might think that is stretching things too far, but if you take seriously the possibility, probability, that that guy in the Cryptogon video  – Gene Rosen – was acting and lying through his teeth about such an event then you have to ask yourself what kind of ‘per-sona’ is he? What level of evil are we dealing with here? And in the year, the Kaspar Hauser anniversary year, in which the Jimmy Saville affair was also blown wide open in the English-speaking world, the worst levels of evil are surely those in which horrendous things are done to children.

If Kaspar Hauser is as important a spiritual being as he is considered to be, then he surely represents something like the true child within each of us and as such, it’s not perhaps too far-fetched to imagine that the day chosen by evil forces for such a deed against children might be associated with him, especially in ‘his’ anniversary year. 14 Dec is the 348th day of the year, leaving 17 days left to run before the end of the year. Kaspar Hauser died on the 17th December from the wounds he received on the 14th.

After the absurdity of the O’Bama kills Osama affair, it’s clear that the PTB in the US now feel they can pull off any stunt, do a little “media magic” hocus-pocus over it and Joe Public in the US will just shrug and let them carry on.

By the way, I very much recommend the following on 9/11 if you haven’t seen it; it’s made by architects, engineers, physicists, chemists and other knowledgeable people:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg The fact that the mainstream media ignores this kind of evidence is IMHO evidence of…. dare I say it…. a cover-up. Yet Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and now Mali go on, alljustifed by 9/11 and the so-called ‘al-Qaeda threat’.

One of the things that operates like a clamp on some people’s minds is the thought that “our government would never do that!” which keeps them from seeing that a government could actually deliberately bring about the deaths of its own citizens by commission or omission. People on both right and left fall for this – the right because of the patriotic “my country right or wrong” attitude, and the left because of their tendency to believe in government and state action (as a symbol of community and protection of the weak) againsy selfish and greedy individuals. Especially when there’s a leftwing government in power, they find it hard to conceive that it could kill its own citizens for ulterior motives. But that’s what our government did in 2003 when we invaded Iraq and what the American government did then too and also in 1991 and also in 1967 when it allowed the Israelis to attack an American warship and kill many of the crew, the USS LIberty.

Here are two documentaries on the issue, one British, one American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOBeqvgsQas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aVXj7hFZx4  BBC

 

 

Some good news from Japan -  perhaps…
but given the short life cycle of Japanese administrations (most recent Prime  Ministers have lasted for 18 months -2 years max) and the great pressure from Big Business, I don’t hold out much hope for success from the politicians, and there is no firm deadline given. It’ll have to be up to the people to hold the government to its word.
Much worse news from Japan is the following detailed article, based on declassified documents and other research, which makes clear that de facto, Japan already HAS nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them:
This is the best piece I’ve read on this in a long time. It makes clear that Japan  – thanks to the USA – already HAS nuclear weapons de facto AND the missiles to deliver them – both of them developed covertly to hide the fact from the Japanese people. Hence the secrecy over Fukushima and Japanese governments’ secrecy over the nuclear programme from the beginning in the 1960s.
===================================================

China – Japan: Just The Tip Of The Iceberg – Analysis

 

Though I do not sympathise with the line taken by this globalist-aligned writer, I think he makes one very cogent point: behind the Senkaku issue potentially is indeed the Ryukyu (Okinawa Islands) issue. The Senkakus never actually belonged to the formerly semi-autonomous kingdom of the Ryukyus, but the Japanese government since the 1890s has always acted as though they did. The Japanese feudal domain of Satsuma (based in Kyushu, southern Japan) conquered the Ryukyus in the early 17th century and brought them under their control. The central government in Edo (later Tokyo) ignored this until the end of the Shogunate in 1867. When the new imperial Meiji government took over in 1868, Japan moved to take over Okinawa for the Japanese State in 1879.
If the Japanese nationalists and/or government can succeed in somehow linking the Senkakus to the Ryukyus in the mind of China and the world, then they can start to accuse China of harbouring desires to seize the Ryukyus. Until the 1870s the Ryukyu Kingdom used to pay tribute to China, and today some Chinese nationalists are already calling for Japan to quit the Ryukyus, saying they rightfully belong to China. Certainly, the Chinese navy would be very happy to have bases in Okinawa, as this would enable it to ‘break out’ into the Pacific, something the USA is determined to prevent (see CFR magazine Foreign Affairs May/June 2010 article by Neo-Con hawk Robert Kaplan).

Japan: U.S. Pawn In Campaign To Encircle China

Time for Tough Measures

By Chu Zhaogen

—————————

WWII Clouds Loom Over China-Japan Dispute on Senkaku Islands

 

The Sino-Japanese dispute has escalated into WWII memories, threats and boycotts as well as unleashing demonstrations.

In its relations with Japan, China frequently brings up the topic of Japanese aggression and atrocities in China from the late 19th century Sino-Japanese war continuing throughout World War II. The dispute with Japan is now part of the legacy of World War II and China claims that under the Potsdam Declaration of 1945, Japan was obligated to return all the territories seized illegally.

The above means that the dispute over the islands is now connected to one of the most highly charged issues in Sino-Japanese history, making it a matter of national honor for the Chinese that is not subject to negotiation.

In the interim, China has allowed anti-Japanese demonstrators a relative freehand (“Their feelings are perfectly understandable” explained the Chinese Foreign Ministry) and the Japanese Embassy in Beijing has issued warnings to Japanese citizens and businessmen to take precautionary measures.

Japanese participation in public and private events in China has been canceled as part of the anti-Japanese mood.

———————-

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201209130062

New Japanese populist party headed by young charismatic leader from the working class, Toru Hashimoto, Mayor of Osaka, includes disputed islands in its logo.

Osaka [Hashimoto] rejects petition for referendum on nuclear power

 

http://122.248.242.148/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201203280037

===============================================


China-Japan Islands Dispute : Key factor – Shintaro Ishihara

Posted by on Sep 19, 2012 in blog | 0 comments

This Australian newspaper report on the East China Sea Islands dispute between China and Japan is typical of the tendency in western mass media, particularly those close to  the global elite of the ‘Anglo-sfear’,  – which is most of them -  to portray Japan as the victim of Chinese ‘bullying’ .

The Australian is a paper  in the Rupert Murdoch camp. Note that it says

Tensions have steadily mounted since pro-Beijing activists were arrested and deported after landing on one of the islands in August. Japanese nationalists then followed, raising their flag on the same island days later.
This implies China started the process. No, tensions have mounted since September 2010. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute#2011 but note that the article fails to mention the crucial role of Ishihara in 2012 developments) At that time the Chinese captain of a fishing vessel sailed too close to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, was warned off by the Japanese coastguard and then rammed one of the Japanese ships in anger. He was probably just angered by their presence or what he saw as their harrassment; there’s no evience as far as I’m aware to suggest that his fishing boat was a cover for Chinese intelligence agencies /navy etc. He was arrested by the Japanese and later returned to China; nothing surfaced to say his boat was a ‘spy ship’. So his  action probably resulted from an “accident”. That incident caused an unusual upsurge of demos in Japan against China.  These were clearly organised by rightwing forces in Japan. They were followed by some Japanese nationalists who went fishing near the islands in July 2011.
THAT was followed by an attempt by Hong Kong Chinese nationalists to sail to the island in January. That was blocked by the HK authorities.
The main tension-inducing event began on 23 March when Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara announced he’d be going to the USA and then on 17 April at a lecture at the American rightwing Heritage Foundation announced his sensational intention to buy the islands for Tokyo. That immediately got the Chinese riled. He proceeded with his plans, which became big news in Japan for several months. He even put a large ad in the Wall Street Journal on behalf of Tokyo government urging people to support his proposal and donate to his fund for the purchase!
Then on 15 August 2012 – the day of Japan’s surrender in 1945 – the  same Hong Kong Chinese nationalists again attempted to land on the island. A few days later, Japanese nationalists (likely linked to Ishihara) actually DID land on the island, but were soon pressured to leave by the Japanese Coastguard. Through August angry demonstarations occurred in China which have only increased since. Then came the Japanese government’s purchase of the islands in early September 2012 from their Japanese owner in order to forestall Ishihara (they claimed), and the Chinese response to that, the sending of the 6 marine surveillance vessels.
If the Chinese were suddenly to drop parachutists on the island by night or land with helicopters etc., the Japanese would really be in a difficult situation. It’s possible but unlikely that the Chinese will make a naval move with real warships as the Japanese navy at present is much stronger, but if the Chinese put soldiers on the islands via an airdop, claiming it’s THEIR territory, then the Japanese would have a real problem. If the Chinese do this – and it would certainly be very effective, as I’m sure the Japanese government would not want to risk war for these nonentities unless the US were behind them, prodding them in the direction of a showdown -  it will signify that China means seriously belligerent business and we will be in a very dangerous situation. It will mean however, that China will have fallen into a US/Japanese trap, because it will be a propaganda coup for Japan and the Anglos-fear, who will say: “See! The Chinese are robbers and imperialist bullies, a danger to international law etc” and we all know where that leads (Iraq, Libya, Syria….)  If China does not land troops and tries instead to negotiate its way through this mess, then we will see that China is indeed a pacific power, as it has always claimed to be. The temptation to use force will be very great, as the “Big Change” in the Chinese leadership is coming up this autumn, and the Chinese elite would be tempted to think that force against Japan would be an easy way to unite the people behind the new leadership.
The point is that the Japanese government chose to buy the islands, knowing that would make the Chinese mad, rather than move to slap Ishihara down as a troublemaker and warmonger, which he is. That suggests to me that the Japanese Cabinet is afraid to move against Ishihara; in other words, he’s likely being backed by some “higher authority”. Or else the Japanese government fear to move against Ishihara because they sense he has too much popular support. Then we come back to the point that Ishihara chose to make his announcement in the US and not in Japan. On 23 March 2012 he already said at his Governor’s Press conference in Tokyo that he was going to the US to “stir things up” (i.e. “ruffle some feathers”) but did not say HOW. This is why I can’t help concluding that he’s working in tandem with US forces on this issue and I suspect the Japanese government may be too. They are allowing him his head; they let him lead the pace and, in effect, got him to push them into involving the Japanese State, which potentially and necessarily involves the US-Japan Security Treaty – unless the US government were to make clear to Japan that it would under no circumstances go to war for the sake of the Senkaku Islands!
One more thing. During the summer, the Japanese ambassdor to China wa sacked because he said things construed as too critical of a strong stance against China and that the islands issue threatened to damage Japan-China relations. The man chosen as his replacement by the Foreign Ministry then died of an alleged heart attack even before he could replace him. The police announced “no foul play” but who knows? Could it be that he too was seen by certain forces on the far right as too soft on China? I find it hard to believe that  Prime Minister Noda was not involved in the choice of replacement for such an important post.