What is money, and where does it come from?

One thing I can tell you for sure – it doesn’t grow on trees! But that doesn’t really answer the question. An article in the New Zealand Herald today caught my eye:

Show me the money: Reserve Bank reveals the ins and outs of printing cash

There is about five and a half billion New Zealand dollars circulating at the moment – in the country and offshore – and hundreds of thousands of notes being destroyed every week.

In 2016, the Reserve Bank destroyed 43 million notes, with a value around $1 billion.

The money is “granulated” down into “very small sort of confetti-sized bits of bank notes” then sent away to a specialised company that recycles them into plastic items one might find at home.

All this money being transformed into plastic on a weekly basis must be replaced.

print money

Thank God for Canada!

New Zealand money is printed much less frequently than it is destroyed, and it’s done overseas.

The notes are printed in Canada because it is not financially viable to run a printing factory in New Zealand. With money only ordered once a year at most, such a factory would lie unused much of the time.

Despite the increased use of Eftpos cards and online banking, the amount of New Zealand cash circulating here and overseas is growing, something that “around the currency world gets discussed a fair bit”.

There are a few “industry theories” on why the around $5.5b in cash is growing. One is that low interest rates means it doesn’t “hurt as much” to hold on to cash.

“You’re not losing interest revenue by holding it to any extent.”

Other reasons could include that New Zealand money was popular overseas, people using cash to avoid taxation, and using cash in the “dark economy” for illegal dealings.

But another thought was simply that increased spending led to increased needs for cash.

One way or another, the Reserve Bank has so far always had enough to circulate, and didn’t have “masses of unused notes sitting around”.


Well, I don’t know about you, but for me, this article raised more questions than it answered.


Everyone needs something to believe in

First of all, millions of dollars in “legal tender” are created and destroyed every year – so clearly those paper notes have no intrinsic value. In fact, they’re not worth the paper (or plastic) they’re printed on.

Second, NZ money is printed in Canada – and if that money factory is working all year round, I guess those Canadians must be printing money for a few other countries as well, yeah?

“New Zealand money is printed much less frequently than it is destroyed, [but despite this, and] “Despite the increased use of Eftpos cards and online banking, the amount of New Zealand cash circulating here and overseas is growing.” How so? Was there more cash in the past? And are people hoarding old banknotes? But the government keeps issuing new designs and the old ones become obsolete, so that can’t be true.

The Reserve Bank doesn’t have masses of unused notes sitting around but always has enough to circulate even at Christmas time when demand increases, and the “around $5.5b in cash is growing” all the time.

Smells fishy to me! Obviously, there’s something they’re not telling us. And it could be this:

It’s been estimated that notes and coins in all the world’s currencies represents about 8% of the total world money supply. What? Yes!

If you think you know what money is, and you’re happy now that you know it comes from Canada, I’ve got bad news for you. Even the best economist brains in the world can’t agree on what money is. But one thing I’m sure they will agree on – It doesn’t come from a printing factory in Canada.

What they’ll tell you, if you insist on a definition, is that there is a mysterious algebraic thing they call “M”. There used to be three of these things, M1, M2 and M3 – but now it seems another has been added: M0. Well, actually I think that was a con, because M0 is notes and coins, and all those other “M”s have actually been moved further up into the realms of virtual reality – bank overdrafts, credit card limits, futures, toxic mortgages, quantitative easings, and other stuff we mortals earning normal wages or salaries have no concept of.


Borrow money from your friendly local banker 🙂

Let me give a simple example. Just before a big commercial shopping event like Christmas, my bank texts me to say there is $20,000 waiting for me. All I have to do is send a text reply to a four-digit number, that $20,000 will magically appear in my account, and I can get on with the business of spreading good cheer to relatives and friends.

I never ask for it – but I can’t help wondering: Is that $20,000 sitting at the bank in a bag waiting for me, or do they give it someone else? What if I change my mind later and ask for it? Do they say, “Sorry, buddy, we gave it to Joe Bloggs”?

And I also wonder, how many other people around the world got the same offer from their banks? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? What if we all take up the offer? What if we all don’t? Will they print more? Or shred the unclaimed millions?

Then there’s the small matter of debt. The United States of America is proud possessor of the world’s largest economy. It also happens that they are the world’s largest debtor nation. According to Wikipedia, on November 7, 2016, US total gross national debt stood at $19.8 trillion (about 106% of the previous 12 months GDP). I checked the US online debt clock at 10.23 last night, and found that their figure is nearly $70 trillion. Clearly it depends who’s measuring, and how they measure it. Whichever figure you decide to run with, it’s a sizable heap of money!

Well, the next question that arises is, who do they owe it to? I asked a mate at work who seems to know a lot about politics, economics and world affairs. “China,” he asserted confidently, “and Japan.” So, I checked them out.

Turns out that China’s “national debt” as of March 2016 (the most recent figure I could find) stood at the equivalent of $4.3 trillion. The same source informed me that Japanese “public debt” in 2013 passed the quadrillion yen barrier in 2013 (about $10.5 trillion at that time).


Looks like a tricky situation – and he’s not alone.

Government debt in the UK (ie not counting private and commercial borrowings) amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, and the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest on) this debt amounted to around £43 billion. The Conservative government pledged in 2010 that they would eliminate the deficit by the 2015/16 financial year. However, “the target of a return to surplus at any particular time was finally abandoned by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in July 2016”. And sad to say, until they start running a surplus, that debt’s only going to get bigger.

Evidently none of the world’s biggest national economies is in any position to lend money to their insolvent neighbours. Fortunately, we have banks that can come to the rescue. Fractional-reserve banking is the current form of banking practised in most countries worldwide. In a nutshell, this system allows banks to lend up to 90% of the money they have in deposits.

The beauty of the system, from the banks’ point-of-view, is that they don’t have to apologise to you when you go to make a withdrawal: “Oh, sorry, we loaned your money to John Doe.” You can have yours, and he can keep his – and the bank can collect interest on the new money it created.


Happy bankers 🙂

But what if we all go and demand our deposits at the same time? Luckily every country has an LOLR – which apparently stands for “Lender of Last Resort”, not “Laughing Out Loud, Really”). This is normally the country’s central bank eg the US “Fed”, or the Bank of England, which guarantee to bail out the too-big-to-fail banks when they get caught out, as in 2008.

And since we are assured that those central banks don’t have large stocks of money in their cellars, and tax-payer dollars are already insufficient to balance their government’s books, I guess that means they have to borrow more money from the private banks.

Either that or go cap-in-hand to the money printing factory in Canada. Think about it.


Neo-Kemalism: Turkey’s new political compass

This opinion piece appeared in our English language daily today under the byline “Sinan Baykent”. I’m always happy when I find someone who agrees with me 🙂

10 kasım 2The July 15, 2016 coup attempt turned regular political references upside down in Turkey. Even ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) cadres started to multiply their eulogies to the first and original Republican era. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, too, gradually began to accentuate Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s importance and significance to Turkish people in his latest speeches. Meanwhile, streets all over Turkey are covered in giant Atatürk posters.

Fans in football stadiums are chanting patriotic and republican marches, putting all antagonisms aside. Big companies are broadcasting ads commemorating Atatürk’s beloved memory on TVs, radios and newspapers. Great popular mobilization occurred during Republic Day on Oct. 29 and Atatürk Memorial Day on Nov. 10.

For a long time AKP cadres always mentioned the founder using different political formulas without referring to the word “Atatürk.” However, the July 15 coup attempt annihilated these unnecessary contortions. The day following the coup attempt, a magniloquent Atatürk poster was hung at the AKP’s headquarters in Ankara. Since then and especially after U.S. pressure on Turkey escalated, Erdoğan and AKP cadres espoused a somewhat “Kemalist” image. Even if some analysts evoke a “pragmatic electoral shift” in order to gain votes for the 2019 presidential elections, I consider this to be the result of a mandatory state-level initiative.

Turkey’s raison d’état has been gravely shaken by the July 15 coup attempt. It triggered the necessity to take state-level immediate actions to eradicate intra-national threats. At the same time vertiginous incidents happened in the region. U.S. support to the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Israeli-backed referendum in northern Iraq and recent developments in Saudi Arabia forced Turkey to adapt itself to a new and changing equilibrium.

10 kasımKemalism has always been seen as the “official ideology” of the Turkish Republic. Nevertheless, it is an ideology of the previous century and it has been largely misinterpreted over the past decades. Nowadays, Turkey’s raison d’état is reshaping itself. As one of history’s ironies, it is the conservative Erdoğan who partly initiated this crucial task. A new and vital paradigm is currently under construction. I find it appropriate to name this original conceptual sketch “neo-Kemalism.” In my opinion, neo-Kemalism is a blend of the founding will, and modern necessities for national sovereignty, prosperity and peace. It embodies the attempt to re-actualize the classical Kemalist thought by cropping its radical edges. In this framework, Kemalism would reconcile with its old “demons” in order to fit in the new scheme of the 21st century.

Erdoğan and Abdullah Gül seem to be the sole political actors to ensure the right inclusion of conservatives into the neo-Kemalist body. However, the neo-Kemalist paradigm also needs Kurdish, Alevi and Christian actors. In sum, it needs actors from all political sectors who would be willing to carry the Turkish Republic to the 21st century.

Neo-Kemalism represents Turkey’s new political compass, and down this road lies a free, united and truly democratic Republic of Turkey. While stubborn ones shall gently disappear from the national political scene; faithful ones, on the other hand, shall achieve political salvation.

94th Anniversary of the Republic of Turkey

TCA Celebrates 94th Anniversary of Turkish Republic

AtatürkOn October 29, 1923, the newly recognized Turkish parliament proclaimed the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, formally marking the end of the Ottoman Empire. On the same day, Mustafa Kemal, who led the Turkish National War of Liberation and was later named Atatürk (father of Turks), was unanimously elected as the first president of the Republic.  

Turkey had effectively been a republic from April 23, 1920 when the Grand National Assembly was inaugurated in Ankara. When the Turkish parliament held its first session in 1920, virtually every corner of the crumbling Ottoman Empire was under the occupation of Allied powers. Exasperated by the Ottoman government’s inability to fight the occupation, the nationwide resistance movement gained momentum. With the Allied occupation of Istanbul and the dissolution of the Ottoman Parliament, Mustafa Kemal’s justification for opening the resistance movement’s new legislative body was created.  

With the opening of the Assembly, Ankara became the center of the Turkish national struggle for liberation. The National War of Liberation culminated in the emancipation of Anatolia from foreign occupation*, the international recognition of modern Turkey’s borders by the Treaty of Lausanne, and finally, the founding of the Republic of Turkey on October 29, 1923. October 29, or Republic Day, is an official Turkish holiday celebrated each year across Turkey and by peoples of Turkish heritage worldwide.  

Following the founding of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk embarked on a wide-ranging set of reforms in the political, economic and cultural aspects of Turkish society. These reforms have left a lasting legacy of which the peoples of Turkish heritage are proud: the conversion of the newly founded Republic into today’s modern, democratic and secular Turkish state.



* And I suspect it will be a long time before those Allied powers forgive Turkey for causing them that embarrassment.

More evidence that the US was behind the failed coup attempt in Turkey

Reassessing The Reasons For The Failed Turkish Coup AttemptEVIL_EMPIRE_COVER_2_670

This review aims to re-evaluate the motivations for the regime change attempt and argues that the US exploited sharp pre-existing differences within Turkey’s military, elite, and society in order to instigate the coup for envisioned zero-sum geostrategic ends against Russia.

Trump thanks Turkey for hosting Syrian refugees


If they don’t do as they’re told . . .

My beloved NZ Herald reported it under this headline: “Never heard a more courageous speech”. It was referring to US President Trump’s address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. The report went on to TRUMPET: “Trump vows to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea over weapons threats”.

The New York Times picked up on the President’s threats to other sovereign states his government is currently not happy with:

“In his speech, Mr. Trump vowed to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea if it threatened the United States or its allies. ‘If the righteous many don’t confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph,’ he said.

He also called Iran a ‘rogue nation’ and said the United States was ‘prepared to take further action’ on Venezuela.”


Local governments in Istanbul and elsewhere provided free evening meals during the month of Ramadan – made some refugees happy for a time.

Our local English language newspaper in Turkey chose instead to focus on a brief mention Mr Trump gave to neighbouring countries that have been quietly getting on with the mammoth task of catering for millions of impoverished refugees from the six-year civil war in Syria.

“U.S. President Donald Trump has thanked Turkey for hosting Syrians who escaped from their war-torn country, while grilling North Korea and Iran during his first address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 19. 

‘We appreciate the efforts of the United Nations agencies that are providing vital humanitarian assistance in areas liberated from ISIS, and we especially thank Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees from the Syrian conflict,’ Trump said.”

“Canım benim”, as Turks might say. Thanks for those crumbs of appreciation from the rich man’s table!

I’m not sure who is qualified to award the title of “The Righteous” to any human being on Earth – but I’m suspicious of anyone who applies the label to him or herself, and I’m 100% sure that precious few US Presidents would qualify.


94th Anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne

24 July. You probably won’t read much about it in media elsewhere, but it’s a pretty important date in Turkey – and possibly one of the reasons Western powers have a long-standing grudge against Turks. I’m publishing a few extracts from other sources on the subject:

The Turkish Coalition of America

Greek invasion

Jubilant Smyrniots welcome the Greeks with garlands, flags and a picture of Premier Venizelos, May 1919.

“The Treaty of Lausanne followed the signing of the Armistice at Mudanya on October 11, 1922, after decisive victories by Turkish national forces led by Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk). Britain was forced to lift its occupation of Istanbul and the Turkish straits and call for a peace conference following the final defeat of Greek forces, which invaded Anatolia as Britain’s surrogates, and as occupying Italian and French forces decidedly moved toward non-confrontation with the Turkish national resistance movement.

Countries represented at the peace talks were Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania and Serbo-Croatia. Russia, Belgium, and Portugal entered the treaty negotiations at later stages to discuss the status of the Turkish straits and financial matters concerning the defunct Ottoman Empire. The Unites States attended the treaty negotiations as an observer.

The Turkish War of National Liberation, fought against the most powerful imperial states of the time, culminated in a military and diplomatic victory for the Turkish people who achieved full independence and sovereignty at Lausanne. This victory would serve as a source of inspiration for several nations in their struggles against Western imperialism and independence for many years to come.” 

Daily Sabah (English language news source published in Turkey)

“Signed on July 24, 1923 in Switzerland’s Lausanne, the treaty officially ended hostilities between the Allies and the Turkish state led by the Grand National Assembly and marked Turkey’s current borders with the exceptions of Hatay, which joined Turkey from Syria in 1939, and the border with Iraq, which was a British mandate at the time.

Sevres map

Turkey, if not for its War of Liberation and the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne

It also reversed the extensive losses of Turkish-inhabited territories that were laid out in the Sevres Treaty, forced upon the Ottoman Empire by Allied powers.

The Treaty of Lausanne also put an end to the centuries-long economic concessions granted by the Ottoman Empire to European powers.”

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Great Speech to Turkey’s Grand National Assembly in 1927

“Gentlemen, I  don’t think it is necessary any  further to compare the principles underlying the Lausanne Peace Treaty with other proposals for peace.  This treaty, is a document declaring that all efforts, prepared over centuries, and thought to have been accomplished through the SEVRES Treaty to crush the Turkish nation have been in vain.  It is a diplomatic victory unheard of in Ottoman history!


“Defeat in World War I resulted in a harsh peace treaty for the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) stripped Turkey of all its European territory except for a small area around Constantinople (now Istanbul); demilitarized the straits between the Black and Mediterranean seas, opened them to ships of all nations, and placed them under an international commission; established an independent Armenia and an autonomous Kurdistan in eastern Anatolia; turned over the region around İzmir to the Greeks; restored the capitulations; and placed Turkish finances under foreign control. By separate agreement, some parts of Turkey left to the Turks were assigned to France and Italy as spheres of influence.

Unlike the other nations on the losing side in World War I, Turkey was able to renegotiate its treaty terms. This was the result of the decline of the sultan’s power, the rise of the nationalists under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and the defeat of the Greeks’ attempt to expand their power in Turkey.

The Allied powers restored Constantinople and the straits to Turkish authority and called for a peace convention to renegotiate the terms laid down at Sèvres. [In a typical attempt to divide Turks against each other] the Allies invited both of the contesting powers in Turkeythe sultan’s government and the nationalists under Kemalto a conference at Lausanne, Switzerland. This precipitated Kemal’s decision to separate the positions of sultan and caliph, abolishing the former, exiling Mehmet VI and giving the residual powers of caliph to his cousin, Abdülmecit II. Thus, when the conference at Lausanne began in November 1922, Kemal’s Ankara government was the sole representative of Turkey.” 

As an interesting aside, I found this brief piece on a website calling itself historycentral.com:

“After an unsuccessful military campaign [sic!] against the Greeks, Turkey concluded a peace treaty with the allies. Under the terms of the agreement Turkey gave up all claim to non-Turkish territories lost in the course of World War I. It recovered however, Eastern Thrace. In the Aegean it received [sic!] Imbros and Tenedos, but the rest of the islands went to Greece [as a result of some submarine seismic activity?]. Turkey paid no reparations. The Straits of Dardenelles were demilitarized and open to all ships in time of peace and all neutral ships in a time of war.”

I’ve corrected the several spelling errors – and left the other nonsense to speak for itself. When it comes to “history”, there may be more than one version of the same events. Be careful which one you choose to believe!

the-treaty-of-lausanneTranslation of the French:

The Lausanne Conference

For Peace in the Near East [still waiting for that!]

At the Chateau d’Ouchy

From 15 November 1922 to 28 July 1923 [What’s with those Roman numerals?]

The United States of America, the British Empire, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Romania, Turkey, the Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia [What happened to that one?], Bulgaria and Russia participated in the work of the conference which led to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne

Leading the fight for freedom – in Turkey and elsewhere

15 July

You’d have to love your president!

Saturday, 15 July, was the first anniversary of a failed attempt by some officers in the Turkish armed forces to overthrow the country’s democratically elected AK Party government. The government has planned a week of meetings and other activities to commemorate the courage of Turkish folk who stood up against tanks and automatic weapons to ensure that the attempted coup was unsuccessful. Before the perpetrators backed down, 250 citizens had lost their lives and an unknown number had been injured.

US and EU governments have been generous in their affirmations of support for Turkey’s struggle against forces working to bring down its government. – somewhat quicker than they were this time last year, when they seemed to delay their reaction until it was clear to all that the coup had failed. That’s not surprising, I guess. When Egypt’s first and only democratically elected government led by Muhammed Morsi was overthrown by army intervention in 2013, Western governments hardly paused for breath before announcing business as usual with the new regime. It seems we can work with military dictators – it’s leaders who have to answer to the will of their own people we’re uncomfortable with.

Chas I

Last successful military coup in Britain – 1649

So those Western leaders are expressing support for Turkey – but read on and you’ll find thinly veiled threats following close behind. Turkey’s government should be careful not to use the failed coup as an excuse to trample on the freedom of innocent citizens exercising their democratic right to dissent. Sounds fair enough – but the reality of highly trained and well-armed troops rising up to overthrow their lawful government is not something the United Kingdom or the United States have had to deal with since the 1640s and the 1860s respectively. Memory fades.

Let’s think about how these things happen. Above all, you need a significant chunk of the country’s people to be unhappy. No general, no matter how ambitious he may be for political power, is going to risk his all unless he feels he has a good chance of pulling it off – which means he has to believe there is substantial sympathy and support for his action. What does that mean in a country of 78 million people? Even 1% means 780,000 people! Last week the leader of an opposition party addressed a crowd estimated at two million to protest about the state of justice in Turkey. My guess is a good number of them wouldn’t have been sad to see President Erdoğan ousted by a military coup. Well, they were allowed to assemble, and Mr Kılıçdaroğlu was allowed to vehemently criticise the government. Nevertheless, there is still a state of emergency in force in Turkey, and many thousands of suspects have been rounded up to answer accusations of involvement in the attempted coup. What would you expect? The vast majority of citizens are going about their normal lawful daily business, and a good number of them are bitching and complaining about the government. That’s their democratic right. What do you have to do to get arrested, that’s my question.


Turkish PM Menderes – hanged by military junta, 1961

Then let’s imagine that the coup had been successful. Lawfully constituted governments in Turkey were overthrown by military intervention on four occasions in the second half of the 20th century. In 1960 the Prime Minister of ten years, Adnan Menderes, was hanged, along with two of his ministers, by the insurgent officers. Menderes was subsequently forgiven, exonerated and had his reputation restored – small consolation for his family, I imagine. After the first three coups there was a period of terror where political dissenters were rounded up, tortured, executed, “disappeared” or driven into exile. Military intervention in the democratic process is no light matter – and almost invariably leads to bloodshed and violent suppression of opposition. At the very least, Mr Erdoğan and his government would have found themselves imprisoned, and a lengthy period of sustained oppression would have been necessary to silence his millions of loyal supporters.

The simple fact is this: if you rise up against your lawful government in any country, and try to overthrow them by force of arms, you had better succeed. If you don’t, you’ll be lucky to escape with your life. Even if you weren’t among the actual rebels, if you are suspected of lending behind-the-scenes support or encouragement, you are likely to be called to account.


Egypt’s Sisi – military dictator? No?

Why then are Western political spokespersons and media sources so critical now of the “lack of freedom and democracy” in Turkey? They seem to have been happy enough to accept Egyptian General Sisi’s violent suppression of opposition since the coup he led in 2013. A less publicised feature of most military coups in developing countries is the support, moral and actual, provided by forces beyond their borders who see economic benefits in a regime change. Turkey’s President Erdoğan is consistent in his denunciation of US-based Turkish religious leader Fethullah Gülen, whose tentacles extend into every corner of Turkey’s establishment. At the same time, Mr Erdoğan also maintains that behind Gülen more sinister forces are at work. US spokespersons deny their government had any part in the attempted coup – but they steadfastly refuse Turkey’s requests to extradite Gülen so that he can answer the charges against him. Perhaps they do have a genuine concern for the poor man’s democratic rights – but they also have a long-standing record of backing regime changes where elected leaders don’t seem to be supporting American “interests”.

Military allianceTwo recent articles caught my eye giving credence to the theory that Washington could have played a part in last July’s insurrection. The first appeared on the Foreign Policy website, bearing the headline Turkey’s Post-Coup Purge and Erdogan’s Private Army”. The article is an absurd mishmash of lies, distortions and internal contradictions that might seem convincing to a foreign reader – but to anyone who knows Turkey, is clearly working to a hidden agenda.

The writer, Leela Jacinto, nails her colours to the mast in her opening paragraph, expressing regret that Turkey’s military — the once mighty pillar of a secular, Muslim-majority state with the second-largest standing force in NATO — has lost its Kemalist oomph.” Surely any true democrat would applaud the relegation of generals to their proper role as defenders of the state from outside threats. The “secular Kemalist” label is used to lend a veneer of legitimacy to their previous overthrowing of elected governments, ensuring that a small US-friendly elite continued to hold the reins of power. It is widely accepted that the CIA had a hand in all four successful coups in Turkey in 1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997.

Last year’s coup having failed, of course its supporters, overt and covert, are keen to imply that it wasn’t a “real” coup – that either it was staged from start to finish, or at least allowed to proceed and fail by President Erdoğan to cement his hold on power. Well, maybe George W Bush did orchestrate events of 9/11/2001 in the USA, and Maggie Thatcher certainly led her nation to war with Argentina for that reason – but I do not believe President Erdoğan is so evil. The evidence doesn’t stack up.

Jacinto contends that the Gülen organisation initially supported Erdoğan’s AK Party but the alliance fell apart when Gülenists exposed AK Party “corruption”. If it’s true, why would they do that to their ally? More likely is the scenario that Erdoğan used them to break the power of the army, but was subsequently unwilling to share power with an unelected shadowy cartel. The Gülenists got angry and decided to get rid of him – possibly/probably aligning themselves with the CIA, enemy of their new enemy.

Common enemyThen there is Turkey’s “lovefest” with Russia. What’s that about, “lovefest”? Implying some kind of drug-crazed, bacchanalian, neo-hippy debauchery. Better to focus on America’s “HATEfest” with Russia, Communists, Muslims, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, or any other group or country that doesn’t kowtow to their programme of world domination.

Jumping from one illusory accusation to another, Jacinto raises a bogey by the name of Doğu Perinçek to justify her suggestion of unholy alliances against the West taking place at “deep state” level involving the AK Party government, communists and ultra-nationalists. Somehow she manages to work in Armenian holocaust denialism and the heroine of the world’s oppressed and downtrodden masses, Amal Clooney. Well, Perinçek is an interesting character, having been incarcerated on several occasions by military regimes in the past for leftist activities. He does seem recently to have reincarnated as a kind of nationalist/socialist – but he continues to operate, as he always has, on the fringe of Turkish political circles, and his miniscule polling in the last general election suggests that he poses no threat to the United States empire, or anyone else.

Jacinto’s final shot is the assertion that President Erdoğan has a private army, a paramilitary “Praetorian Guard” that not only faced down the soldiers last July, but is working behind the scenes to foster some kind of global Islamic order aimed at bringing down the West.

Who is this woman? Who is pulling her strings?

The other article that caught my eye appeared in Time Magazine: Turkey’s ‘Iron Lady’ Meral Aksener Is Getting Ready to Challenge Erdogan. Like Doğu Perinçek, Ms Akşener is known in Turkey, but tends to lurk these days at the fringes of the political sphere. Like Nobel prize-winner Orhan Pamuk, she likes to present herself as one who has courageously stood against the corrupt power of a dictatorial state. In fact, her brief spell as Minister for Internal Affairs occurred during the unlikely and short-lived coalition of discredited “secular Kemalist” Tansu Çiller and Islamic firebrand Necmettin Erbakan. Journalist Jared Malsin portrays Akşener as a scary synthesis of Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton and Marie le Pen. Try selling that to the Turkish electorate, Jared!

puppet govtIt does, however, strike me that something sinister could be going on here. Malsin acknowledges that one of the main problems with the current political scene in Turkey is the lack of a credible leader to oppose the charismatic Erdoğan. HDP leader, Selahattin Demirtaş provided a brief spark of hope before committing political suicide by throwing in his lot with the Kurdish separatists. Nationalist MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli seems to have decided that his best chance of achieving office is by working with the government; and Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, still hankering for the one-party state where Atatürk’s own party held sway, has lost so many elections the Guinness people are thinking of opening a category for him in their 2018 edition.

Clearly, then, if the movers and shakers of world capitalism are going to have another try at overthrowing Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they’re going to need a figurehead to put in his place. Far-fetched theory? I don’t think so.

Hate USAVenezuela’s long-term president Hugo Chavez was one of Washington’s most hated world leaders. A vocal socialist, Chavez utilised his country’s enormous oil resources to initiate domestic programmes aimed at a more equitable distribution of wealth. He lent support to Cuba and other Central and South American nations struggling to escape US hegemony, and committed probably the ultimate unpardonable sin: befriending Iran. In 2002 a CIA-sponsored military coup actually ousted Chavez, but the result was overturned by a huge outpouring of popular support for the President. When Chavez died in 2013, his protégé Nicholas Maduro took over his role. Now, in spite of having the world’s second-largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela’s economy is shattered – as a result of plummeting oil prices. Why did oil prices plummet? Because the United States, the world’s largest consumer, moved from being a buyer to a seller. How did they do that? They began to exploit previously uneconomic reserves using the expensive and environmentally disastrous fracking technique. Why would they do that? Surely not to destroy Venezuela’s economy, get rid of President Maduro and install a US-friendly right wing dictator . . . would they? Can they really be that evil?