Going Cashless: EU Is Pushing To Criminalize Use Of Physical Cash

The European Union is in danger of “criminalising” the use of physical cash with its new anti-money laundering laws, an MEP has warned.

Dr Gunnar Beck, a representative for the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, has warned that the EU appears to be pushing for the “criminalisation” of the use of physical cash with its new anti-money laundering (AML) laws.

Politicians in Brussels have long been pondering an upper legal limit on the value of cash transactions within the bloc, with lawmakers detailing plans to ban Europeans from spending over €10,000 in physical tender as part of a single transaction.

The European Parliament however has now voted for such a proposed limit to be dropped down to as little as €7,000 as part of efforts to clamp down on money laundering and tax dodging within the bloc, with officials also voting to see cryptocurrency transactions paying for goods and services that are valued over €1,000 to be banned.

Many within the parliament appear to be justifying the decisions as being an important step in curtailing criminality within Europe, though Dr Beck warns that the limits on cash payments now appear to have gone too far.

In a statement to Breitbart Europe, Beck emphasised that while the AfD welcomed additional efforts to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing, it rejected the parliament’s call for cash transactions to be curtailed.

“While we should focus on money laundering by organized crime and Islamist terrorists, the EU chooses to tighten its surveillance of German savers and pensioners transactions,” Dr Beck remarked. “This is a mistake.”

He went on to claim that the AfD were now the “only party defending cash freedom” in Germany, with the members of other supposedly right-leaning parties from the country allegedly voting in favour of the cash restrictions, despite criticising the implementation of similar measures at home.

The populist representative also expressed concern about the nature of the measures Brussels is looking to pass, with the fact that Eurocrats have reportedly decided to opt “for a regulation instead of a directive” meaning that individual nation-states will not be able to avoid having to implement the anti-cash reforms, even if they want to protect the use of physical legal tender within their own countries.

Read More: Going Cashless: EU Is Pushing To Criminalize Use Of Physical Cash

 

Musk seeks meeting with Chinese leadership – Reuters

China is Tesla’s second-biggest market after the US, with the company’s largest production plant based in Shanghai

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has made plans to visit China sometime in the coming weeks and hopes to meet with the country’s new premier, Li Qiang, Reuters reported on Friday. The billionaire’s last trip to the People’s Republic came in 2020, during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Musk is looking to travel to China “as early as April,” though the exact timing will depend on Li’s schedule, the outlet said, citing two sources with knowledge of the trip. They did not reveal exactly what Musk plans to do in the country, or what he hopes to achieve through his meeting with the premier. 

Tesla, which has found a significant market in China, has not confirmed the reported travel plans.

Read more

World Economic Forum reacts to Musk ‘insult’

Musk met with Li previously at the 2019 opening of Tesla’s ‘gigafactory’ in Shanghai, and the two later held a meeting online, where the CEO thanked him for supporting the plant throughout the pandemic, according to local media reports. At the time, Li served as Shanghai’s party secretary and was involved in the construction of the factory, the company’s largest production facility. He took over as the eighth premier of the State Council of China earlier this month, after Xi Jinping began his third term as president. 

While Musk’s last visit to China came in early 2020, just weeks into the global coronavirus outbreak, he has delivered a number of virtual addresses for events based in the country – including its 2021 World Internet Conference, where he vowed to boost Tesla’s investments in China.

Read more

China reveals plans to counter Musk’s ‘Starlink’

US President Joe Biden has said Musk’s “cooperation and or technical relationships” with foreign powers are “worthy of being looked at,” though hastened to add that he was not accusing the entrepreneur of “doing anything inappropriate.” Though multiple media reports last year stated that the White House had launched a “national security review” of Musk’s overseas business dealings, the Biden administration later insisted the claims were “not true.”

Despite Musk’s growing financial ties with China, Beijing itself has also voiced concerns about some of his ventures, with military researchers previously calling to develop a way to “destroy” SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network should it become necessary. Tesla’s electric cars have also reportedly been banned from Chinese military facilities due to the cameras installed on the vehicles, a directive imposed soon after a contentious meeting between US and Chinese officials in Alaska in 2021.

How Billionaires Fund Scholars Who Pump U.S. Imperialism

Eric Zuesse

The super-rich have always profited enormously from imperialism — and that means from invasions, coups, and other international regime-change operations.

Right now, they are especially pumping for WW III (to conquer Russia and China, above all), or at least for increasing the likelihood that it will happen; and here’s how they do this — how it’s being done, right now:

On March 28th, the great investigative historian Thierry Meyssan, at his Voltaire.net site, headlined “The preparation of a New World War”, and he reported that (and I have here added, to it — non-italicized and between brackets — explanations and linked documentation, for purposes of clarification):

The United States is pushing its European Union allies to prepare for a Third World War. They have no choice but to fight it if they want to emerge victorious from the “Thucydides trap” [the phrase coined in 2012 by Harvard’s Graham Allison and described here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap, which said that it’s natural and reasonable for the world’s dominant military power to do anything, up to and including to commit suicide, in order to preserve its remaining as the world’s dominant military power — never be willing to become “#2,” but ceaselessly fight to maintain supremacy]. [Allison’s breakthrough book, Essence of Decision (1971, co-authored by Philip Zelikow) had argued that in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, an alternative “decision” favoring WW III would have been warranted if Khrushchev had not capitulated to JFK’s demands — it assumed that Soviet aggression (instead of American aggression) had sparked the problem: “With his plans thwarted, Khrushchev tried to save face by pointing to American missiles in Turkey, a position similar to the Cuban missiles.Allison’s primary message was that the concept of mutually assured destruction as a barrier to nuclear war was unfounded. By looking at organizational and political models, such an outcome was quite possible — nations, against what was predicted by the rational viewpoint, could indeed ‘commit suicide.’” That 1971 book by Allison also normalized or ‘justified’ virtually all bad ways of making political decisions — ways that increase the likelihood of war resulting. Allison’s career has been funded by Democratic Party billionaires such as: this and this and this. So, he was a crucial scholar who pushed for the replacement of the mutually-assured-destruction, anti-WW-III, geostrategic meta-theory, by the Nuclear Primacy, win-WW-III, meta-theory, even before the “Nuclear Primacy” meta-theory was introduced decades later, in 2006 (by Harvard, and by the American Rhodesists’ Council on Foreign Relations). “Nuclear Primacy” argues that America needs not to prevent a nuclear war, but instead to prepare for and win a nuclear war against Russia. This, of course, is in accord with Dr. Allison’s “Thucydides Trap” idea: that the world’s dominant nation has a right to conquer the entire world — even if attempting to do it might be “suicidal.” All U.S. Presidential Administrations during at least the present Century have been guided by this “neoconservative” belief.]

Unless all this commotion is just a staging to “keep” the allies on their side while many states in South America, Africa and Asia declare themselves “neutral”. At the same time, the noise of boots is stirring up the Japanese militarists who, like the “radical nationalists” in Ukraine, are back.

THE CHANGE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

In 1949, the United States and the United Kingdom created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). They included Canada and the states they had liberated in Western Europe. For them, it was not a question of defending themselves, but of preparing an attack on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union responded by creating the Warsaw Pact.

In 1950, when the Korean War began, the United States planned to extend the conflict to the German Democratic Republic (known as “East Germany”). In order to do this, they had to rearm the Federal Republic of Germany (known as “West Germany”) despite the opposition of France, Belgium and Luxembourg. They therefore proposed the creation of a European Defence Community (EDC), but failed in the face of resistance from the Gaullists and the French Communists.

At the same time, they helped rebuild Western Europe with the Marshall Plan. This plan included many secret clauses, including the construction of a European common market. Washington wanted to dominate Western Europe economically and preserve it politically from communist influence and Soviet imperialism. The European Economic Communities – and later the European Union – form the civilian side of the US token, whose military side is NATO. The European Commission is not an administration of the heads of state and government of the Union, but the interface between them and the Atlantic Alliance. The European standards for not only armaments and construction, but also for equipment, clothing and food, etc., are established by the Nato services, first in Luxembourg, then in Belgium. They are transmitted to the Commission, and today approved by the European Parliament.

In 1989, as the Soviet Union was collapsing in on itself, the French President, François Mitterrand, and the German Chancellor, Helmut Köhl, imagined freeing Western Europe from American tutelage so as to be able to compete with Washington. Negotiations on this treaty took place at the same time as the end of the quadripartite occupation of Germany (12 September 1990), the reunification of the two Germanies (3 October 1990) and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (1 July 1991). Washington accepted the Maastricht Treaty as long as it recognized their military domination. Western Europeans accepted this principle.

However, Washington distrusted the Mitterrand-Köhl couple and demanded at the last moment that the European Union include all the former members of the Warsaw Pact, and even the new independent states, which had emerged from the former Soviet Union. These states did not share the aspirations of the Maastricht negotiators. In fact, they are rather suspicious of them. They want to free themselves from both German and Russian influence. They rely on the “American umbrella” for their defence. …

On 9 September 2019, I issued my first article on (and which was titled) “How the U.S. Created the Cold War”. It documented Dr. Allison’s historically false statements about how the Cold War started, and it documented how the new U.S. President in 1945, Harry Truman, became immediately surrounded by proponents (such as Graham Allison is) of America’s coming to achieve the world’s first-ever all-encompassing empire. General Dwight Eisenhower was Truman’s personal hero, and his advice clinched for Truman the necessity for this global conquest by the U.S. to happen. Truman founded on this basis the Department of ‘Defense’ and CIA in 1947, and NATO in 1949, and he warped FDR’s plan for the U.N. so that that organization was crippled at its very start (especially because Truman intended for the U.S. ultimately to become the dictator over all nations).

Right now, the “Thucydides Trap” is part of the conceptual armamentarium of neoconservatives, which is to say, of Rhodesists — the followers of Cecil Rhodes, who in 1877 created the theory behind what now is called “neoconservatism” or expansion of the U.S. to control all nations. It has been funded by U.S. and British billionaires ever since Rhodes died in 1902. And they continue to fund it, up to, if not into, WW III.

Here is the background on Graham Allison — a leading voice for U.S. empire:

Graham Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard University where he has taught for five decades. Allison is a leading analyst of national security with special interests in nuclear weapons, Russia, China, and decision-making. Allison was the “Founding Dean” of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and until 2017, served as director of its Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, which is ranked the “#1 University Affiliated Think Tank” in the world. As Assistant Secretary of Defense in the first Clinton administration, Allison received the Defense Department’s highest civilian award, the Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, for “reshaping relations with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to reduce the former Soviet nuclear arsenal.” This resulted in the safe return of more than 12,000 tactical nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republics and the complete elimination of more than 4,000 strategic nuclear warheads previously targeted at the United States and left in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus when the Soviet Union disappeared. Allison’s latest book, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (2017), is a national and international bestseller. 

His best-selling book, about China versus America, Destined for War, closes the second paragraph of its Preface: “China and the United States are currently on a collision course for war — unless both parties take difficult and painful actions to avert it.” That’s a lie: the U.S. regime is lying through its teeth by saying that it agrees that Taiwan is part of China while simultaneously threatening to invade China if China takes control over Taiwan in a way that the U.S. regime disapproves of. Only idiots (or outright liars) don’t acknowledge that all the wrong is by the U.S. side, and that China is 100% in the right, about Taiwan. It’s not 50-50 like he pretends. Graham Allison pretends that there is no aggressor (the U.S.) here, and no defender (China) here: that there is no predator, and no victim, as between the U.S. regime and the Chinese Government. He’s smart enough to know that what he said there is false — it was intended to deceive fools (so as to benefit the owners of firms such as Lockheed Martin). To judge by the high praise by its readers, there are plenty of such fools.

His career has been funded by billionaires. They use such ‘experts’ to testify to Congress — provide the ‘justifications’ — in order for Congress to have the excuses to have taxpayers fund their operations. These are academic lobbyists, to ‘justify’ taxpayers’ spending more than half of what Congress allocates every year not to “non-defense” spending, but instead to military spending, some of which isn’t paid through the Pentagon because the billionaires want to hide from the taxpayers the fact that most of the money that Congress allocates each year is going to ‘defense’, and that most of that ‘defense’ money is going to their corporations, which sell to the Government and further-enrich those billionaires. Another way it’s funded was described on March 31st by Meyssan, about the oil that the U.S. armed forces in Syria direct Kurds and others to steal from Syria: “The presence of US soldiers in Syria is illegal and violates International Law. US troops are supposed to fight Daesh. In reality they support the mainly Kurdish mercenaries of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) which created an autonomous state under the name of Rojava. It paralyzes grain farming, but exploits oil wells. Revenues are shared in two equal parts. The first goes to the Kurds of the PKK/YPG, the second to the CIA which uses them as a slush fund to finance its covert operations around the world without having to report to Congress.” So: this is CIA money that’s stolen from Syria, instead of legally wrangled, via Congress (and under their ‘experts’ advices), from U.S. taxpayers.

If you want to know why America’s super-rich ‘earn’ so much more (and increasingly more) money than the public does, this is the way it gets done. The public doesn’t control those ‘experts’ and ‘public’ officials: they do.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

China and Brazil deal a blow to US dollar-powered bullying

Ditching the American currency in trade will diminish Washington’s ability to impose its will

China and Brazil have secured a deal to conduct bilateral trade in their own respective currencies, eliminating the US dollar as an intermediary.

The agreement between the two BRICS countries, which have $150 billion in annual trade, would probably have been signed in Beijing this week had Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s scheduled visit not been postponed due to illness. At around the same time, China also conducted its first-ever trade of liquified natural gas settled entirely in yuan with France’s TotalEnergies.

The decision by Brazil and China to pursue non-dollar trade is a huge geopolitical moment, and a sign that countries are seeking to move away from using the US currency, in direct response to Washington’s abuse of the global reserve currency for its own hegemonic aims. Although the greenback will of course remain a prominent force in global trade and economics, the Americans’ ability to use it as a tool with which to bully and quash other countries is diminishing.

Read more

Brazil and China sign pact to abandon dollar

The hegemony of the dollar

Since the end of World War II, the United States dollar has been the global reserve currency and a standard for international trade following the establishment of the Bretton Woods system of monetary management by the US and its allies in 1944. Global commodities are priced according to the US dollar, while Washington has positioned itself as the nexus of the global financial system, where most capital is concentrated. As such, banks borrow and lend in terms of dollars, thus making the greenback the lifeblood of the interwoven global economy.

Having consolidated such great power over the global financial system, the US has subsequently been able to utilize the dollar as an overt geopolitical weapon in order to enforce its will on other countries, both directly and indirectly. This has been done through actions or threats of cutting off targeted individuals, entities and even countries at will. These measures are genuinely effective, because being blacklisted from the US dollar can see a serious business lose everything, and not just the American market. This can have such significant influence that third-party entities, including those not even based in the US, may choose to avoid dealing with sanctioned entities due to the risks it brings.

To be fair, such measures can serve worthy purposes. For example, US sanctions can cut off funding for terrorist groups and tackle organized crime, and therefore have a genuine security benefit. However, US sanctions in recent years have increasingly become a means of unilaterally attempting to impose America’s will on third-party countries, and with the intention to serve geopolitical ends. Washington has become obsessed with sanctions and has distributed thousands of them, often with the goal of comprehensively isolating and impoverishing smaller countries, such as Syria, North Korea and Iran. Although the US will always claim it doesn’t sanction food or humanitarian aid deliveries to these countries, the sanctions are often so broad and extensive that all legitimate means of doing business with the target country are closed off.

Read more

China is winning the diplomatic struggle against the US

Currency multipolarity

It is no surprise, given Washington’s industrial-scale abuse of sanctions as a political weapon, that there is growing pushback from other countries that increasingly see the dollar as arbitrary and unreliable. As a result, political momentum for alternative payment systems is growing, which is seen as a sign of defending national sovereignty in an uncertain world increasingly defined by geopolitical competition. For China, a mammoth trading nation that is being subjected to increasing hostility by the US, this is a growing priority as it faces a potential scenario of a war over control of the US-backed island of Taiwan.

If such a war broke out, the US would likely respond in a similar manner to how it did with Russia, and attempt to blacklist thousands of Chinese firms from the US dollar in an attempt to cripple the country’s economy. Therefore, developing dollar-less currency and financial systems outside US control is a priority, especially with like-minded countries that have a vested interest in multipolarity (which is pretty much anyone outside of the collective West). As such, these are not just countries designated as “adversaries” by Washington. As President of Indonesia Joko Widodo told the media: “Be very careful. We must remember the sanctions imposed by the US on Russia.” He urged the development of domestic payment methods, noting “offshore settlements and dependence on foreign payment networks such as US Visa or Mastercard will no longer be necessary.”

In conclusion, the growing traction for alternative currency and payment systems is a political reaction to the increasing politicization and weaponization of the US dollar as a means to control other countries. Additionally, the US Federal Reserve, through decisions such as interest rate hikes, may also make economic choices which benefit America at the expense of the rest of the world. As a result, many nations increasingly see the US dollar as an obstacle to their own economic sovereignty and development, and this is why nations such as those in BRICS are acting now to de-dollarize their economies. Of course, the gravity of the dollar will always be strong, but the days of it being used to abuse and impoverish others are fading as multipolarity arrives.

China tells EU president to get better speechwriter

Von der Leyen’s speech was contradictory and misleading, said Beijing’s envoy to the EU

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s speech ahead of her visit to China was incoherent, contradictory, and misinterpreted Beijing’s policies and positions, Chinese ambassador to the EU Fu Cong said on Friday.

“I was a little bit disappointed,” Fu told the outlet CGTN. “That speech contained a lot of misrepresentation and misinterpretation of Chinese policies and Chinese positions. And I would say that whoever wrote that speech for President von der Leyen does not really understand China, or deliberately distorted Chinese positions.”

Von der Leyen gave off the impression of realizing the importance of engaging with China on the one hand, but being “fearful of criticism, especially from hardliners in Europe and maybe even from the US,” on the other, Fu added. Reading the speech it seems “as if two people are quarreling with each other, so there is no coherence.”

“We do hope that in her visit to China and in her dialogue with the Chinese leaders, she will be able to understand China better,” the ambassador concluded.

Read more

EU issues warning to China over Ukraine

Von der Leyen is scheduled to accompany French President Emmanuel Macron to Beijing next week, where they are expected to meet with President Xi Jinping.

Speaking at the European Policy Center on Thursday, Von der Leyen said the EU needed to “stress-test” and “de-risk” its relations with Beijing, both political and economic, and argued that a “decoupling” from China was neither a viable strategy nor in the bloc’s interest. On the other hand, she argued Brussels needed to be “bolder” in its approach to China, which she described as becoming “more repressive at home and more assertive abroad.”

Von der Leyen also warned that the “determining factor for EU-China relations going forward” will be how Beijing “continues to interact with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war,” meaning the conflict in Ukraine. 

China has insisted on neutrality in the conflict, condemned the unilateral Western sanctions as illegitimate, and proposed a peace plan. The EU has fully endorsed the government in Kiev and supplied it with billions of euros worth of weapons, ammunition, training and other equipment.

Wang Luton, the director for European affairs at the Chinese Foreign Ministry, also commented on von der Leyen’s remarks. He tweeted on his personal account that the EU “talks a lot about de-risking recently,” but is actually creating risk by “linking trade with ideology and national security and creating bloc confrontation.”