When nearly a year ago we reported about the case of "Goldman whistleblower" at the NY Fed, Carmen Segarra, who alleged she was wrongfully terminated after she flagged "numerous conflicts of interest and breaches of client ethics [involving Goldman] that she believed warranted a downgrade of Goldman's regulatory rating" and which were ignored due to the intimate, and extensively documented on these pages, proximity between Goldman and either one-time NY Fed Chairman and former Goldman director Stephen Friedman or current NY Fed president and former Goldman employee Bill Dudley, we said:

As everyone knows, both Bill Dudley and Stephen Friedman used to be at Goldman, and as we noted Dudley and Goldman chief economist Jan Hatzius periodically did and still meet to discuss "events" at the Pound and Pense.

So while her allegations may be non-definitive, and her wrongful termination suit is ultimately dropped, there is hope this opens up an inquiry into the close relationship between Goldman and the NY Fed. Alas, since the judicial branch is also under the control of the two above mentioned entities, we very much doubt it.

There was hope, but as we said: we doubted it would lead to much more. It didn't: in April, the NY Fed won the dismissal of her lawsuit:

U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams in Manhattan ruled that the failure by the former examiner, Carmen Segarra, to connect her disclosure of Goldman's alleged violations to her May 2012 firing was "fatal" to her whistleblower lawsuit. Abrams also said Segarra could not file an amended lawsuit.

"Congress sought to protect employees of banking agencies ... who adequately allege that they have suffered retaliation for providing information regarding a possible violation of a 'law or regulation,'" the judge wrote. "Plaintiff has not done so."

Segarra's findings that Goldman's conflict-of-interest practices may have violated merely an "advisory letter" that did not carry the force of law did not entitle her to whistleblower protection under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Abrams said.

There is something quintessentially English about the tradecraft of spying, as history reminds us of events not too dissimilar to those in play today.

In the late 1560's Francis Walsingham began his career in subterfuge working with William Cecil to thwart the plots against the then English monarch, Elizabeth I. Later, in 1572 as the Principal Secretary to Elizabeth and her chief spymaster, his earlier work in preventing the subversion of state power became mere opening gambits in a craft that would include the interception of mail, the use of informants and even torture, amongst others.

Enter the Scottish independence referendum to be held on Thursday 18 September 2014, which, coincidentally, is the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 where the English army were defeated by Robert the Bruce, King of Scots.

On Friday 13 June 2014, the very antithesis of an auspicious day for the superstitious, The Independent ran a story about internet trolls 'opening the door' for MI5 dirty tricks in attempting to subvert the Yes Campaign for Scottish Independence. Jim Sillars, a former Scottish National Party (SNP) deputy leader said:

At the beginning of the two year referendum campaign on the question of Scottish independence the Department of the Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland circulated a memo to all of the departments of the Irish civil service to the effect that the Irish government would remain silent throughout the campaign. It was to be understood that the question of Scotland's future would be a matter for the Scottish people. Dublin is a small European capital where news gets around. Media and government in Ireland adhered to this principle of neutrality.

As the campaign in Scotland progressed it became widely known in Dublin that the British government and the British Embassy were applying pressure on the Irish state and the press to speak out against Scottish independence. One source within Oireachtas Éireann, the Irish parliament, has let it be known that the agenda of the British government was to paint a bleak picture of an independent Scotland in order to depress the growing support for a Yes vote in Scotland. Ireland, heavily dependent on trade with the United Kingdom, remained neutral throughout the campaign. At about the same time it became clear that this was very much part of a global offensive against Scotland. France, Spain, the United States, Canada and others began to make pronouncements echoing the sentiments that had been pressed upon Ireland. Certainly, the opinion within Dublin was that this was policy as far as Britain was concerned. Russia made the decision to break the silence of Downing Street's international conspiracy and spoke out.

As the campaign progressed into the final year analysts in both Berlin and Dublin predicted that support for independence in Scotland would overtake support for the union and issued memos to various of their government departments with instructions to begin the process of drafting policies to deal with the breakup of the United Kingdom and the arrival of a new European state. It can only be assumed that this, as a standard practice of government, was replicated around the world. Such a provisional measure no doubt undermined the confidence of Westminster in securing a No vote in Scotland. It was clear in the final months of the campaign that Britain was indeed in a state of frantic desperation. It was at this point that Mr. Cameron himself entered into secret discussions with the Council authorities on the Shetland Islands. Britain was preparing for defeat, and was not prepared to leave empty handed. This was the state of play until the date of the referendum.

The change.org petition demanding a re-run of the Scottish referendum, "counted by impartial international parties", has now reached 93,000 signatures as incredulous reaction mounts to the highly dubious referendum vote. Even Ron Paul expressed extreme scepticism about the result. The British media, meanwhile, is having a field day mocking the viral video footage of suspect activity at counting venues across Scotland, laughing off the fact that the only international observers to report anything about how the referendum was conducted were Russian observers, and dismissing Scots' calls for recounts and fresh referenda as being "sour grapes" based on "conspiracy theories".

But are these 93,000 (mostly) Scottish citizens, and the thousands of Facebook users demanding an investigation, just deluded sore losers?

If we look at the British voting system in general, we find a somewhat less than glowing 2008 report from the Council of Europe's human rights watchdog stating that reforms to the postal voting rules introduced by Labour made electoral fraud in Britain "childishly simple". The British voting system was now open to fraud and the system "makes it extremely easy to add bogus characters to the voters' lists", the report stated.

But to conclude that the Scottish referendum specifically was likely rigged for a 'No' vote by 'British' intelligence, we need to provide reasonable evidence that the British elite have the necessary character 'qualities', motive and operational history to engage in such a serious crime. We must also provide reasonable cause to believe that the British government and media opinion polls, that generally predicted a majority 'No' vote in the run-up to the referendum, were false, that the majority of Scots intended to vote yes, and that rigging of the vote was therefore necessary. Most importantly, we must present a plausible scenario, backed up by evidence, that British agents had the opportunity to commit this most undemocratic of crimes.

Americans overwhelmingly are in favor of a re-escalation of the war in Iraq. This is part of their view of Constitutional government, which can be summarized as follows. "Bomb them wogs!"

A Washington Post-ABC News poll this week showed that Americans overwhelmingly view the Islamic State as a serious threat to vital U.S. interests and, in a significant shift, widely support airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Seventy-one percent of all Americans say they support airstrikes in Iraq, and 65 percent support strikes in Syria. That is more than double the level of support a year ago for launching airstrikes to punish the Syrian regime.

The administration's response to the conjunction of this weekend's People's Climate March and the International Day of Peace?

1) Bomb Syria the following day, to wrest control of the oil from ISIS which gained its foothold directly in the region through the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan funding and arming ISIS' predecessors in Syria.

2) Send the president to UN General Assembly, where he will inevitably give a rousing speech about climate and peace, while the destruction of the environment and the shattering of world peace is on full display 5,000 miles away.

Nothing better illustrates the bankruptcy of the Obama administration's foreign policy than funding groups that turn on the U.S. again and again, a neo-con fueled cycle of profits for war makers and destruction of ever-shifting "enemies."

The fact can't be refuted: ISIS was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria.

This Frankenstein-like experiment of arming the alleged freedom-seeking Syrian opposition created the monster that roams the region. ISIS and the U.S. have a curious relationship -- mortal enemies that, at the same time, benefit from some of the same events:

a) Ousting former Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki for his refusal to consent to the continued presence of U.S. troops in his country.

b) Regime change in Syria.

c) Arming the Kurds so they can separate from Iraq, a preliminary move to partitioning Iraq.

What will the final offensive of the junta look like?

The situation in Donbass is in limbo. On one hand, the signed truce has halted large-scale military operations; on the other, exchange of fire did not stop for a single day. There have even been attempts to carry out limited operations. For example, the Ukrainian command has not abandoned hope of rescuing the encircled special forces units from the Donetsk airport (so far all attempts at this have been repulsed). According to the [Ukraine] National Security Council, over the first 5 days of the armistice, the Ukraine Armed Forces (UAF) units came under fire from the Novorossiya Armed Forces (NAF) about 130 times. The NAF quote similar figures for the UAF shelling of their positions.

The peace is too 'fragile'

At the level of statements, it is already clear that leaders in Donetsk and Kiev have opposite views on the future of Donbass. Poroshenko said that the agreed "special status" for Donbass is temporary, and is not even prepared to talk about a transition to a federation-type structure in Ukraine. Yuriy Lutsenko, who is now the head of the president's electoral bloc, has been more outspoken and insulting, sharing his plans for staging a blockade of the region. As for the DPR, the Prime Minister Alexandr Zakharchenko stated on September 9 that the truce is only an opportunity for the UAF to retreat from the rest of the territory of the DPR/LPR without further bloodshed.

It is also worth noting that at the level of the individual unit commanders, there is open discontent with the Minsk accords. In particular, Alexey Mozgovoi, the Prizrak brigade commander, said that 100% of the NAF personnel do not support these agreements with Kiev. As for the "hawks" in the rest of Ukraine - those supporting Kiev in the continuation of the war - there is a clear decline in their aggressive mood. At the end of June, during the previous truce, there were rallies in Kiev demanding the continuation of the war; they nearly set fire to the Parliament building. Today, after a series of crushing defeats, Ukrainian "hawks" are much more moderate, although the desire to harm Donbass has not evaporated. In general, it is worth noting that the two sides consider the truce to be nothing more than a pause before the next stage of active hostilities.

As for the immediate future, at the moment there are three main options: the UAF offensive, the NAF offensive, or the indefinite freezing of the conflict. In Novorossiya, the first option is considered the most likely outcome.

In a perpetual rotation of armed conflicts around the world, the attention of the American war-geopolitical-media apparatus has returned to focus on the Middle East, in Syria. This time the pretext is called ISIS.In the usual scheme established for decades, the manipulation of a minority is exploited by imperialism to create chaos and disorder in a community. The mechanism of 'divide and rule', a distinctive and characteristic American foreign policy, was revived after the end of the Soviet Union. The propellant of religious extremism, at least as strong as the political factor, contained all the features necessary for this purpose.

As 9/11 came true, America waged the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda (here's the expedient), bombed 4 nations and Bin Laden killed (...), the fuel began to run out again. The failed attempt by the western media, but very provocative, to replace Al Qaeda with Russia has certified the pins of American foreign policy.

The focus is mainly on 3 factors:

• Hitting the economic interests of all countries directly connected with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran.
• Generate as much chaos as possible in the Middle East, in order to avoid the emergence of a power stabilizer such as China, Russia or Iran.
• Power up the so-called "Wartime-Industrial-Economic-Political-Media" who lives for wars and loves "fighting" terrorism.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen (drones count!), Pakistan, Libya, Iraq (2) and now Syria. Seven countries hit by American weapons in 14 years. An average of a rain of missiles on a sovereign nation every two years. Not to mention the situations in which the United States gave direct support to a nation/faction for their own personal interests (Ukraine, Georgia in 2008 and Syria since 2011).

Of course, we no longer speak of wars with 'boots on ground'. After the apparatus devastated Iraq and Afghanistan, not even the media have succeeded, for now, in convincing the American people that a new intervene with ground troops is a good idea. The FP (foreign policy), immediately adjusted to this shit and had already changed it's techniques creating proxy wars: destabilizing countries with Color Revolutions and Arab Springs had become a regular practice.

The reason the Netherlands Is closing its prisons is staggering, especially for the American reader: there are not enough offenders because of the country's progressive philosophy and best practices it is using.


The Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA), representing over 60 organisations, called for the government to urgently limit "unnecessary use of prison, ensuring it is reserved for serious, persistent and violent offenders for whom no alternative sanction is appropriate".

In 2009, the Dutch justice ministry announced a plan to close eight prisons in the Netherlands. Why? A declining crime rate that is expected to continue. In 2013, a staggering 19 prisons were scheduled to close. Officials have announced they are in the process of cutting 3,500 jobs.

How did they do it?

Primary reasons for fewer offenders and prisoners in the Netherlands include a continued general decline in crime rates, a focus on rehabilitation of offenders, progressive drug laws, and also, those convicted are choosing electronic tagging instead of incarceration.

How to Lead a Coalition and Avoid a Global Conflict

Sergei Glaziev is an Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Summary: The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability - a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty.

U.S. actions in Ukraine should be classified not only as hostile with regard to Russia, but also as targeting global destabilization. The U.S. is essentially provoking an international conflict to salvage its geopolitical, financial, and economic authority. The response must be systemic and comprehensive, aimed at exposing and ending U.S. political domination, and, most importantly, at undermining U.S. military-political power based on the printing of dollars as a global currency.

The world needs a coalition of sound forces advocating stability - in essence, a global anti-war coalition with a positive plan for rearranging the international financial and economic architecture on the principles of mutual benefit, fairness, and respect for national sovereignty.