Trump Policy Continues Purposefully Fueling Terrorism

February 8, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In the American cartoon show G.I. Joe, no matter how badly the heroes of G.I. Joe battered the villains of the Cobra organization the previous week, they would return with even more men, weapons, and vehicles. No explanation was ever given as to where Cobra drew these vast resources from, and no explanation was needed - because it was just a children's cartoon.

In real life, however, a similar scenario is unfolding, and a similarly childish narrative is being foisted upon the public to conceal where real villains are drawing their vast resources from. Unlike in a children's cartoon, a real explanation is needed.

The threat of "terror," or "radical Islamists" as US politicians and media refers to them, has become as cartoonish in reality as Cobra was in fiction.

Organizations like Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) appear to draw from inexhaustible reserves of money, men, materiel, weapons, and even vehicles. They appear capable of transiting national borders, even the seas with fighters, logistical support, and financial resources in quantities that would confound all but the largest, most competent global military forces.

These terrorist organizations, espousing Wahhabi ideology originating in the Persian Gulf states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, are waging war simultaneously in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, all while carrying out terrorist operations globally from North America and Europe to Eurasia and the Far East.

They are fighting the collective forces of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Few nations on Earth possess the political, military, and financial resources required to create and sustain such a force, and fewer still, possess the motivation to do so.

A Travel Ban Addressing Not Even the Symptoms 

US President Donald Trump's executive order banning entry into the United States of citizens from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen,  Libya, and Somalia was predicated on protecting the American people from what the order claimed were "terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States."


The order makes specific reference to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 on New York and Washington in which nearly 3,000 would die.

However, the ban in fact omits literally every nation from which the alleged hijackers on September 11 hailed - 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), 1 from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

Louvre Attack Exposes Impotence of the Travel Ban 

More recently, amid the attack on France's Louvre, the suspect now identified as Abdallah Reda Refai El Hamahmy, was born in Egypt - not on President Trump's list - had traveled to France from the United Arab Emirates - also not on the list - where he had worked for two years as a lawyer. He had also previously traveled to Saudi Arabia - also not on the list - where his wife and child currently reside.

Despite none of the nations the Louvre attack suspect resided in or frequently traveled to being on President Trump's list, he would exclaim in a message posted on social media platform Twitter:

A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S.

Yet, by "getting smart," one assumes President Trump means the US should acquiesce to his executive order and the travel ban it authorized. Yet the ban would not have prevented Abdallah Reda Refai El Hamahmy from entering the United States, finding a knife, and attacking any target of his choosing.



It should be noted that suspected hijackers from Egypt and Lebanon, as well as the Louvre attack suspect, were members of or inspired by terrorist organizations funded and politically backed by Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi neighbors.

In fact, the groups these terrorists are drawn from includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization from which Al Qaeda was originally gestated - and a group defended by US and European political interests from states attempting to dismantle their networks, under various excuses including "freedom of expression" and "democracy."

In this sense, the US and Europe are not just failing to fight terrorism, they are intentionally fueling, aiding and abetting it.

Still, President Trump's supporters maintain that the list included in the executive order originated from the Obama administration, and that Saudi Arabia "may" be added later. However, recent events suggest otherwise.


Actions Speak Louder Than Words 

In addition to omitting Saudi Arabia from the list of nations included in his executive order's travel ban, President Trump would send US warship USS Cole to the coast of Yemen to provide security for Saudi ships in the region.

Saudi warships have been targeted amid the full-scale war Riyadh is waging against its Yemeni neighbors.

The USS Cole is of course the ship attacked in 2000 by Al Qaeda while at port in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen US sailors would die. It is unlikely that a single US warship can "protect" Saudi ships, but it could significantly increase the likelihood of Yemeni forces inadvertently hitting the US ship in an attempt to defend themselves against Saudi attacks.

The logical progression of events after an accidental strike on a US ship by Yemeni forces would be wider US involvement in the Yemeni conflict, on the side of Saudi Arabia - the nation President Trump's supporters believe "may" be added to the travel ban "later."

From Whence Terrorism Really Flows 

It is clear that terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and ISIS - cited by US President Donald Trump as the pretext for his recent executive order - are creations and perpetuations of joint US-Saudi collusion. They have jointly created a global mercenary force that can fight where their regular forces cannot, using tactics and methods on a scale that even their respective covert operations forces could never achieve.

And while it could not be any clearer that these terrorist organizations draw from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates - with US and European backing - the summation of their political, financial, and military resources, President Trump - despite vowing to fight and defeat terrorism - has doubled down on protecting this very source of their power.

By doing so, President Trump ensures that Al Qaeda and ISIS - just like the fictional Cobra organization - reappears each week with more men, weapons, and vehicles - no matter how badly battered they were the previous week.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

So You Want to Start a Resistance

February 7, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Talk of "resistance" ebbs and flows as political parties enter and leave power. The one constant among this turbulent process is the futility and impotence of these so-called "resistance" movements ignited and left to burn.

When President Donald Trump took to the White House in January 2017, such calls were once again made to "resist" the new president and all the perceived evils he represented.

However, so confused and detached from reality are these calls, that no such resistance has even the remotest possibility of improving America's plight, with a much more likely possibility of actually making that plight worse.

The Deep State: From Whence Real Power Flows

According to Wikipedia, the deep state is described as:

...a political situation in a country when an internal organ ("deep state"), such as the armed forces and civilian authorities (intelligence agencies, police, administrative agencies and branches of governmental bureaucracy), does not respond to the civilian political leadership.

And the reality is, within every nation exists a deep state of one sort or another. Excluded from Wikipedia's definition are "internal organs" comprised of corporate-financier interests with unwarranted wealth and influence on scales that likewise allow them to "not respond to the civilian political leadership," or even directly and fully control that civilian political leadership altogether.

Beyond mere conspiracy theories, leaked e-mails made available by Wikileaks from 2008 - one month before President Barack Obama won the 2008 election - reveal how Citibank's Michael Froman provided a list to John Podesta laying out virtually the entire cabinet of the soon-to-be president.

The New Republic's October 2016 article, "The Most Important WikiLeaks Revelation Isn�t About Hillary Clinton," would report (emphasis added):

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner. 

This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that.

Citibank's parent company, Citigroup, reported annual net profits for 2016 at around 15 billion US dollars. This is enough money to provide 1 million dollars in bribes to every member of the US Congress, in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and still maintain the vast majority of its wealth. And Citigroup is just one of many immense, corporate-financier monopolies not only cohabitating upon Wall Street, but cohabitating upon the boards of directors and sponsorship lists of America and Europe's most influential policy think tanks.

Prominent US policy think tanks include but are not limited to:

• The Brookings Institution
• RAND Corporation
• The Heritage Foundation
• Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Council on Foreign Relations
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Center for American Progress
• Crisis Group
• Freedom House
• The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
• The Atlantic Council 

Think tanks are forums within which unelected corporate-financier funded policymakers devise and promote policy on behalf of their benefactors. They represent the collective interests of multiple multi-billion dollar multinational corporations, banks, and other institutions. They often have ties directly to corporate-media platforms, with corporate-media figures either included within think tank boards of directors, or their media platforms servings as corporate sponsors, or often, both.

Policy is not only devised and promoted from within think tanks and by media platforms associated with them, but this policy inevitably ends up in the hands of corporate lobbyists, who in turn, place it in the hands of both US legislators and staff in the White House itself.

The Hill in an article titled, "Top Lobbyists 2016: Hired Guns," enumerates specific lobbying firms, while The Hill's article, "Top Lobbyists 2016: Corporate," enumerates specific, prominent lobbyists and the corporations they work for.

While many Americans may envision the US President bent over a desk, penning US policy in the Oval Office at night, in reality, US policy is merely rubber stamped by presidents and congress members - many times having not even read the bills and policies they are signing off on.

This is the very definition of a deep state that not only ignores civilian political leadership, but exercises absolute control over that leadership's selection and administration.


Fighting the Deep State

Realizing then, that is it not "Obama" or "Trump" that we are actually protesting, or even conservatives or liberals, but the deep state and the corporate-financier special interests that constitute it regardless of who occupies the White House, Congress, or any side of any given mainstream debate, it becomes clear that protests against "Trump" and other politicians or parties we disdain are beyond futile.

Instead, taking on the deep state more directly is required, but how?

The Global Fortune 500 includes:

• Big-Retail
• Big-Energy and Oil 
• Big-Auto 
• Big-Pharma 
• Big-Ag and Processed Food Giants  
• Telecom and Tech Giants 
• Big-Banks, Insurance, and other Financiers  
• Big-Defense
• Big-Media  

The corporations listed among the Fortune 500 also, without coincidence, sponsor the aforementioned, unelected policy think tanks.

They are able to wield such power and influence because of the immense, unchecked wealth they hold as well as their control over the very necessities modern civilizations requires to function. They hold this wealth, in turn, because they are uncontested monopolies in their respective industries to which hundreds of millions of people around the globe pay their paychecks to each and every month.

Imagine global wealth and influence represented by a game board. The US-European Fortune 500 have nearly covered the entire board with their pieces, with very few exceptions being competing circles of special interests in Russia and across Asia, particularly in China.

To truly fight the deep state, it is imperative to remove their pieces from the board and replace them with pieces of our own.

How Organic is Pushing Big-Ag Off the Board 

While many people believe revolution involves burning cities, unfurling flags, and joining huge mobs of rebels and protesters, the reality is that positive change only comes from patient hard work, incrementally removing unjust, domineering edifices from society, and replacing them with better, localized, and more equitable structures.

There is perhaps no better example of this than the organic agricultural movement.

Resulting from a backlash against massive global-spanning and insidiously unjust chemical and genetically-modified agricultural monopolies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, Dow, and Bayer, the modern organic food revolution is predicated on local grassroots networks spanning the world, consisting of millions of people - both producers and consumers, media platforms educating and informing the public, farmers' markets, organic farms and collectives, local retailers, as well as processing companies producing value-added products and more.

Village by village, town by town, city by city, and country by country, organic agriculture has spread for a variety of reasons.

First - the direct socioeconomic benefit it brings those who are engaged in growing and selling. Instead of one massive corporation concentrating profits from around the globe into the hands of a board of directors and their corporation's shareholders, organic agriculture - through local entrepreneurship - distributes those profits more evenly, directly to the people growing, processing, and selling the food.

Second are the health benefits, not just for consumers eating cleaner food, but also for the farmers growing it spared the hazardous effects of chemicals used in big-ag farming. Additionally, the environment is spared pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, as well as genetic pollution associated with big-ag farming.

And finally, there is the positive macro-economic impact of localized organic farming - involving a more distributed and localized agricultural system that can better prepare for and protect itself from market fluctuations, natural disasters, and other factors that have an immense and devastating impact on farmers trapped within big-ag monoculture.

The organic food industry has been steadily growing, taking a larger and larger percentage of the market away from big-ag each year. In other words, taking big-ag's pieces off the game board, and replacing them with organic agriculture's pieces.

And as the organic food movement grows, it becomes easier in many places for individuals and groups of people to enter into the market - further eroding big-ag's position on the board.

Big-ag has attempted to strike back through policymakers it controls, its army of lobbyists, and influence over the media to attack, undermine, and even outlaw aspects of the organic industry to reassert itself. However, it is in vain. Those entering into the organic industry outnumber those invested in big-ag a million to one - and are entering into organic agriculture out of passion and self-preservation, not profits alone.

A similar tale has unfolded due to information technology empowering individuals with the ability to compete with establishment media monopolies. The alternative media  has slowly replaced the game pieces of big-media monopolies, wiping out some entirely, and pushing others into corners where they now desperately fight to retain credibility, profitability, and audiences.

Taking on the Rest of the Deep State 

In order to replicate this success across all other industries and aspects of modern human civilization the deep state currently dominates, the same sort of incremental building-up of our own institutions, businesses, networks, and paradigms is required.

Image: The Game Board of global geopolitical, socioeconomic power. 

As technology advances, it will empower people on a much more local level to directly compete with the biggest and most powerful monopolies on Earth. Solar power and advances in battery technology will allow larger numbers of people to make either personal or local power grids independently of both state and corporate energy monopolies.

Manufacturing technology is increasingly making it possible to manufacture locally, short-circuiting corporate-financier dominated, global-spanning supply chains and all aspects they encompass. It also allows for a larger number of players to enter into and compete in industries that have for over a century been dominated by immense, centralized monopolies every where from big-auto to aerospace corporations, and big-retail.

Crytocurrencies and blockchain technology is making it possible for people to develop their own independent monetary instruments, circumventing centrally controlled banks, financiers, and state monetary systems.

While some of these solutions are just finding their way onto the game board, dwarfed by those of existing monopolies, the incremental, patient, but persistent organic agriculture movement as well as the alternative media are case studies proving that it is not only possible, but likely inevitable. As technology makes it easier for us to take a share of the market and the benefits that come with it for ourselves, we will - and at the expense of existing monopolies.

Still Not Convinced?

For those still not convinced - imagine this scenarios:

Americans take to the streets, protesting against President Trump and his policies, burning down their own cities, brutalizing their neighbors, fighting with police resulting in arrests and injuries on all sides - only to end up going home and changing exactly nothing. 

Because when they go home, they continue paying into the very system they were just out protesting - by shopping at Walmart, filling up their big-auto cars with big-oil gasoline, drinking Starbucks, pecking away at the screens of their slave-made Apple iPads, fueling the actual source of social injustice - the concentration of wealth in the hands of corporate-financier monopolies - that gestated a politician like Trump and all those that inhabit his administration.

Compared with this second scenario:

Americans begin working locally, starting and supporting local businesses, organizing themselves to create local institutions that carry out the affairs of their community that government and large corporations refuse to address.

In 4-8 years, a level of self-sufficiency will exist in such communities, cutting off both the government they despise and the corporations that created and influence it from the money, time, attention, and energy of millions of people. These resources, kept locally, would be used to move the country forward directly as the people - not Wall Street and Washington - sees fit.  

And because no "revolution" of fire, blood, and bullets took place, the government would atrophy and shrink where it was unwelcomed by the people, and survive and continue to function where it was needed - and where it still functioned, people who now hold leverage in their local communities with their own two hands, could demand and receive the administration that suited them - not special interests - best.  

In the end, there would not be lawless mayhem, but a government brought back into balance, brought back because of the leverage the people empowered themselves with locally through constructive activism, entrepreneurship, local institutions, and decentralized networks. 

 Americans must realize by now, having protested the war in Iraq in 2003 only to be completely ignored and have the war rage for now 16 years under both a Republican and Democrat president, and having protested almost continuously since President Trump's election in 2016, that protests alone accomplish nothing.

Without leverage, the special interests that dominate American politics have absolutely no reason to listen. By cutting these interests off from the very source of their strength - and channeling that strength instead into local movements like organic agriculture, alternative energy, local manufacturing, alternative media and entertainment, and alternative currencies - we empower ourselves with overwhelming leverage - not only to exact our demands from our elected officials, but to implement policy locally without conferring with or receiving "approval" from Washington in the first place.

For those who delude themselves into believing they can replicate the success of "revolutions" like the 2011 "non-violent" "Arab Spring," they need to consider the above equation of real power, then reexamine the "Arab Spring" to see whether or not that was truly a grassroots "revolution," or simply foreign-backed regime change fueled by billions of dollars from US-European special interests through a variety of channels - including very violent subversion.

While the actual path to resisting and overcoming unwarranted wealth and power is not as glamorous as a Hollywood summer blockbuster, an incremental transition in which we shift the direction our own resources flow, away from Wall Street and Washington and instead back into our communities locally, will not only improve our communities and enrich ourselves, but also completely and truly "drain the swamp" US President Trump has only dredged deeper and stocked with even more creatures.  

US-NATO War Continues to Creep East

February 5, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Despite unmaterialized hopes of a new tack for US foreign policy, it appears that each and every front of US aggression has reopened in earnest, from the Middle East vis-a-vis Iran, to the South China Sea opposite China and now across Eastern Europe between US-led NATO and Ukrainian forces against Russia.

 Articles like the UK Independent's "�Everything is destroyed�: on the ground as latest surge of deadly violence strikes eastern Ukraine," sound the alarm, stating:

While the fighting has been largely kept to the outskirts of Avdiivka during the day, the nighttime has been hellish for residents. Shells have landed indiscriminately throughout the town, and civilian casualties are racking up.

The Independent would continue, stating:

According to Hug, both sides are making use of heavy weapons such as the multiple-launch Grad missile system, and they are doing so in plain sight of OSCE observers. Grads, along with 152mm and 122mm artillery, were banned under the Minsk II agreement, which was signed two years ago after the catastrophic battle of Debaltseve.

And to accent just how "in plain sight of OSCE observers" Ukrainian forces are operating, footage taken by BBC staff shows two OSCE observer vehicles following directly behind advancing Ukrainian tanks during one of the reported offensives.

Despite the BBC's own staff capturing the footage, the BBC's reporting on Ukraine features carefully cropped photos omitting the OSCE observer vehicles.

The OSCE itself, in its own official reports, states (emphasis added):

In violation of withdrawal lines, the SMM observed two tanks (T-64) between government-controlled Orlivka (22km north-west of Donetsk) and Avdiivka (17km north of Donetsk). In government-controlled Talakivka (90km south of Donetsk) the SMM saw two towed howitzers (D-30, Lyagushka, 122mm) towed by two military trucks (Ural). In government-controlled Ivanivka (59km south-west of Donetsk) the SMM saw four multiple rocket launcher systems (BM-21 Grad, 122mm) at a military compound which were previously seen on 29 November 2016. On 29 January, approximately 2.5km north of government-controlled Aslanove (85km south of Donetsk), an SMM mini unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) spotted four self-propelled howitzers (2S1 Gvozdika, 122mm) near a tent with two-three soldiers visible and stacks of what appeared to be ammunition boxes.

While US and European media portray US foreign policy as having shifted under incoming president Donald Trump, Ukrainian forces are emboldened by a systematic campaign of US-NATO support, including US-NATO forces operating both inside and outside Ukraine attempting to train and equip Ukrainian forces ahead of renewed fighting anticipated in eastern Ukraine.

CBS News in its February 1, 2017 article titled, ""Re-tooling an army from scratch," as it fights a war," admits:

The U.S. is working with Canadians, British and Lithuanian forces at the remote training center near Yavoriv, which is now referred to as the Joint International Peacekeeping Security Center.

Training ranges from gearing up ministry of interior troops to regular troops, military police and medical personnel, all admittedly for the purpose of reengaging rebel forces in the east in direct violation of agreements made with eastern Ukrainians, brokered between the US, NATO and Russia.

CBS News would admit as much, stating:

"The training here will increase their survivability on the battlefield," Ducich said. "They're going against an enemy that has very sophisticated weapons -- and not just from the lethal standpoint... there's an electronic warfare aspect to this that we have not seen that we are now incorporating into the training here. I don't think it's about matching (Russia's capabilities). I think it's knowing what you can do and maximizing that effectiveness on the battlefield."

In addition to openly training Ukraine's army to reignite hostilities, rebel leaders have been targeted and assassinated amid the fragile ceasefire.

In October 2016, Arseny 'Motorola' Pavlov, a prominent and effective rebel commander, was killed in a terrorist bomb-blast in Donetsk. More recently, the BBC would report that Oleg Anashchenko, the defense minister of the Luhansk People's Republic was likewise killed in a targeted terrorist bombing.

It is no coincidence that US-NATO forces openly and diligently prepare Ukraine for war in violation of ceasefire agreements, while assassinations are carried out against military commanders of the very forces the West is preparing Kiev to fight against.

Despite this, US and European media sources are attempting to portray Ukraine as "abandoned" by the US. while portraying America's new presidential administration as "sympathetic" to Russia.

Despite this elementary attempt at misdirection, it should be noted that US-NATO attempts to bolster Ukrainian forces and covert attempts to degrade eastern Ukrainian rebel forces ahead of renewed hostilities has only accelerated under the presidency of Donald Trump, not subsided.

For geopolitical analysts, understanding the actual interests driving hostilities and confrontation between Washington, London and  Brussels vis-a-vis Moscow, unfolding directly and indirectly, helps sift through political rhetoric and identify the actual motivations and special interests behind them moving this war forward regardless of who sits in the White House.

By all actual metrics, the war in Ukraine appears set only to expand, not in spite of US efforts under President Trump to the contrary, but precisely because US special interests plan to use Trump's intentionally misleading and empty rhetoric as cover to reignite hostilities more drastically than before the ceasefire was struck.

Just like the US feigned rapprochement with Iran in an attempt to paint Tehran as unreasonably aggressive and ungrateful for American sympathy ahead of hostilities always meant to expand, Trump's feigned affinity for Russia and its political leadership will be quickly converted into "regret" as Russia is portrayed as taking advantage of American "good-will," "forcing" America to become more heavily involved in a Ukrainian crisis it itself ignited between 2013-2014.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

US Set to Expand South China Sea Conflict

February 5, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Triumphalism followed the election of US President Donald Trump, particularly among those opposed to US foreign policy under US President Barack Obama. In particular, hope was rekindled that America would withdraw from the many, provocative conflicts it was cultivating, ranging from the Middle East to East Asia.

However, triumphalism and hope are now dashed, as the new US administration moves clearly and in earnest to not only continue on with these confrontations, but expand them.

For students of history, particularly those following events in Asia Pacific, the prospect of the US moving its confrontation with China forward for control over the region is hardly a surprise.

A Quick History Lesson of US Imperialism in Asia 

The United States had occupied the Philippines, declaring it a US territory from 1898-1946. It had also been involved in the military occupation and several armed clashes in China with Chinese forces, including during the Second Opium War and the Boxer Rebellion. Such conflicts saw Chinese fighters attempt to remove by force foreign influence, including supposedly Christian missionaries used to impose US and European sociopolitical control over China.

During this period of overt American colonisation throughout Asia Pacific, the annexation of Taiwan was also considered, as an American analogue of Britain's annexation of Hong Kong.

In Thomas Cox' 1973 book, "Harbingers of Change: American Merchants and the Formosa [Taiwan] Annexation Scheme," published by the University of California Press, Cox wrote:

Since it appeared unlikely that Taiwan would long remain a part of the Chinese empire and there was ample justification for action by the United States, [US Commissioner in China, Peter] Parker argued that the United States should move quickly. "I believe Formosa and the world will be better for the former coming under a civilized power," he wrote.

It should be noted that Parker's advocacy of the US annexation of Taiwan was backed not by political ideology, though it was certainly presented as such publicly, but by US business interests at the time, particularly those of the Nye Brothers, merchants involved heavily in US-Chinese trade, including the movement of opium across the region.

Regional dynamics would change just before, during, and immediately after World War 2, with a resurgence of localised power and independence movements ousting Western colonial powers. This included the ousting of British and French holdings across the region such as in Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia and across Indochina which included Laos, Cambodia and of course Vietnam.

The ousting by force of French administrators from Vietnam brought the United States back into the region more directly and on an unprecedented scale.

And while the United States would claim its reasons for intervening in Southeast Asia were predicated on preventing a "domino effect" of spreading communism, leaked documents known as the "Pentagon Papers" made it abundantly clear that America was simply continuing its hegemonic pursuits vis-a-vis China in an effort to encircle, contain and eventually subdue a rising Beijing.

The US State Department's own Office of the Historian, in a section titled, "189. Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson," dated 1965, states explicitly:

The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China.

 The papers openly advocate US global hegemony, stating:

...the role we have inherited and have chosen for ourselves for the future is to extend our influence and power to thwart ideologies that are hostile to these aims and to move the world, as best we can, in the direction we prefer. Our ends cannot be achieved and our leadership role cannot be played if some powerful and virulent nation�whether Germany, Japan, Russia or China�is allowed to organize their part of the world according to a philosophy contrary to ours. 

And again, just like during deliberations over the possible annexation of Taiwan during the 19th century, US ambitions in Asia Pacific may be rhetorically presented as pursuit of a particular ideology, but are in reality underpinned by economic interests which seek to move into and subsequently dominate markets globally, displacing anything and everything preexisting, through coercive diplomacy, or through indirect or direct military force.

21st Century American Hegemony 

Fast-forward to the 21st century. During the administration of former US President Barack Obama, the US "pivoted" toward Asia in an attempt to reassert itself in a region quickly escaping out from under what remained of over a century of US-European hegemony.

The pivot failed, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being categorically resisted and rejected across Asia, and feigned US rapprochement with several of China's neighbours turned into confrontations across Southeast Asia as Washington attempted to replace governments friendly with Beijing with those that would toe an anti-Beijing line.

In an attempt to conceal what is a decades-long agenda, and the continuation of Obama's "pivot," US President Donald Trump's counsellor Steven Bannon, as revealed by a Guardian article titled, "Steve Bannon: 'We're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'," would claim that China, along with "Islam," presented a menace to the "Judeo-Christian" West.

This ideological rhetoric is aimed at distracting the public, convincing them that US policy toward China is now determined by Trump's ideological, xenophobic tendencies, rather than merely the latest logical iteration of Obama's "pivot," and the Vietnam-era's full-scale military containment strategy.

Also noteworthy in Bannon's incomplete thought is his omission of so-called Christian missionaries in China and the role they played in the attempted invasion, occupation and subjugation of China during the 19th century by US-European interests.

The Guardian would report:

Bannon�s sentiments and his position in Trump�s inner circle add to fears of a military confrontation with China, after secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that the US would deny China access to the seven artificial islands. Experts warned any blockade would lead to war. Advertisement 

Bannon is clearly wary of China�s growing clout in Asia and beyond, framing the relationship as entirely adversarial, predicting a global culture clash in the coming years. 

�You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They�re arrogant. They�re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian west is on the retreat,� Bannon said during a February 2016 radio show.

And while the Guardian attempts to pose as sounding the alarm over the Trump administration's seemingly xenophobic and confrontational stance, its own omission of America's longstanding attempts to encircle, contain and subjugate China regardless of who occupies the White House or what rhetoric accompanies each iteration of US policy toward China, serves as complicity.

For policymakers across Asia, understanding history and the special interests that have and still do drive American foreign policy is key to seeing through inflammatory rhetoric, and essential in analysing and preparing solutions for continued attempts by Washington to reassert itself in a region an ocean away from its own shores, in a modern-day continuation of Western colonialism the nations of Asia Pacific have fought hard to escape and rise above over the past generation.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

Trump's "Migrant Policy" Exposes Continuity of Agenda

February 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The full scope of the current deception being perpetrated against both the American people, and the rest of the world under the presidency of Donald Trump and the supposed "push back" from the "liberal media" is exposed in full amid President Trump's unfolding migrant policy.

Bloomberg, in two articles, reveals in full how the US proxy war against Syria, presided over by US President Barack Obama, prepared for under US President George Bush Jr., and plotted since President Bush's father was in office in the 1990's, continues in earnest under President Trump. The articles also reveal how the so-called "liberal media's" "push back" against President Trump willfully omits this glaring fact, and diverts public attention toward more partisan explanations for what is blatantly continuity of agenda.

Bloomberg's first article titled, "Trump Freezes Refugee Program, Orders New Vetting for Entry," claims:

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday indefinitely banning admission of people fleeing Syria, temporarily freezing the entry of other refugees and prohibiting entry by people from seven majority-Muslim nations for 90 days. 

Trump said the measure would prevent terrorists from being admitted into the country. Democrats labeled the order a "Muslim ban" and criticized it as inhumane. Absent from the order was a provision from a draft of the document, obtained by Bloomberg, that would require the Defense Department to make a plan to create "safe zones" in Syria and neighboring countries for people fleeing that nation�s civil war.

The article also claims:

The admission of refugees would be suspended for 120 days. Citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya would be banned from entering the U.S. for 90 days, while the government determines what information it needs from other countries to safely admit visitors. The order doesn�t list the countries but points to laws that cover those seven, which were provided by the White House.

Bloomberg and other allegedly "liberal" media platforms have attempted to link President Trump's policies to his own business interests, deflecting public attention away from the fact that the seven nations targeted by the new executive order are precisely the same nations targeted since the 1990's by Wall Street and Washington special interests.

US and European media are also leveraging their own manufactured "migrant crisis" to sell the concept of "safe zones" in Syria, a policy laid out and pursued under President Obama when initial US-backed regime change in Syria failed to materialize. The policy is now being continued without interruption under President Trump.


Bloomberg's second article titled, "Trump�s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties," claims:

President Trump has signed an executive order that bans citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East from entering the United States for 90 days, according to the White House. His proposed list doesn�t include Muslim-majority countries where his Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. Properties include golf courses in the United Arab Emirates and two luxury towers operating in Turkey.

In reality,  the nations spared from President Trump's executive order are those nations the United States has partnered with for decades, including premier state-sponsors of terrorism.

At Face Value 

Even a cursory glance at the latest executive order defies the alleged purpose behind it - fighting terrorism. Saudi Arabia and Qatar's exclusion from the list of restricted nations begs belief.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the ideological and financial centers of terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS). These nations have provided extensive material support to both terrorist groups according to not only President Trump's National Security Adviser, retired US Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn, but also President Trump's opponent in the 2016 presidential election and former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Flynn was director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) when in 2012, a memo was leaked revealing "the West, Gulf monarchies, and Turkey" behind the rise of a what at the time was called a "Salafist principality."

The leaked 2012 report (.pdf) states (emphasis added): 

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To clarify precisely who these "supporting powers" were that sought the creation of a "Salafist" (Islamic) principality" (State), the DIA report explains:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

In other words, the US, its European allies, and its closest allies in the Middle East, sought the rise of a "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) in eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS is now centered. The immensity of ISIS forces, territorial holdings, and its ability to continuously wage war against the combined military forces of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia leave no doubt that the terrorist organization enjoys not only state-sponsorship from abroad, but is the recipient of a multinational state-sponsorship.

In 2014, in an e-mail between US Counselor to the President John Podesta and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it would be admitted that two of America's closest regional allies - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - were providing financial and logistical support to ISIS.

The e-mail, leaked to the public through Wikileaks during the 2016 US presidential election campaign, stated:

...we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

How then, does a state sponsor of terrorism like Saudi Arabia escape President Trump's alleged "anti-terror" executive order which conveniently excludes - once again - the greatest offender and threat to the security of the American people and the world at large?



Digging Deeper - General Wesley Clark's "Seven Nations" 

Retired US Army general, Wesley Clark, during a 2007 Flora TV talk titled, "A Time to Lead," revealed a singular agenda stretching back as far as 1991, relayed to him by then US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Paul Wolfowitz. Clark stated (emphasis added):

I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't. And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91' which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn't intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

Clark would fast forward to the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the US invasion of Afghanistan. He would state (emphasis added):

...we attacked Afghanistan. I was pretty happy about that, we should have. And then I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later, I saw the same officer, I said why why haven't we attacked Iraq? We are sill going to attack Iraq, he said, oh sir he says, its worse than that. He said he pulled up a piece of paper of his desk, he said, I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office, it says we are going to attack and destroy the governments in in seven countries in five years. We are going to start with Iraq and then we are going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran seven seven countries in five years. 

It is no coincidence that so many years later, and transcending both President Obama and now President Trump's administrations, the same seven nations are still being targeted, while the admitted global centers of terrorism - Riyadh and Doha - remain protected - even nurtured, heavily armed, and defended - by the United States and its European allies.

What is unfolding is decades-long continuity of agenda - simply dressed up in the latest and presumed-to-be most effective partisan narrative Wall Street and Washington can script - one in which President Trump is pursuing "racist" and "discriminatory" migrant policies while hypocritically defending his own personal business interests.

And while it is no coincidence, but rather documented conspiracy - media organizations like Bloomberg apparently expect the public to believe it is just a coincidence, that President Trump's abhorrent rhetoric and transparent hypocrisy just so happens to serve several decades of policy - perpetuated regardless of who is in the White House, and regardless to how various US presidents have spun their role in advancing this singular, nonpartisan policy throughout those decades.

However, the script writers on Wall Street and in Washington have once again skillfully manipulated the American people - not on an intellectual level - but on a very elementary, emotional level. Hatred or support for President Trump and his crass rhetoric blinds both sides from the fact that all President Trump is doing, is precisely what President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush Sr. did before him - exactly what US corporate-financier special interests desire - nothing more and nothing less.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.   

US Betrays Iran Deal as Predicted - Edges Closer to War

February 2, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - As the world remains mesmerized by the antics of US President Donald Trump, his national security adviser Michael Flynn brazenly linked Iran to Yemeni fighters who attacked a Saudi warship, as well as cited an Iranian missile test as grounds to reverse course on US rapprochement with Tehran, concluding that Iran was "put on notice."

Flynn would state:

In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region.

Flynn, who was head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) when a memo was published acknowledging the West, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf monarchs sought the rise of what was at the time called a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria - precisely where the Islamic [Salafist] State [principality] now occupies, is surely aware that America's "friends and allies in the region" include state sponsors of terrorism, including the state sponsors of the Islamic State itself.

As Flynn furiously flipped through the pages of his statement, he was signifying the predictable betrayal of the so-called "Iran deal," meant before it was even introduced the public - as early as 2009 - to serve as a pretext not for peace, but for war with Iran.

US corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (.pdf) would lay out in detail various means of provoking war and regime change against Iran.

In it, Brookings explicitly revealed how a "superb offer" would be given to Iran, only to be intentionally revoked in a manner portraying Iran as ungrateful:

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context�both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer�one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians �brought it on themselves� by refusing a very good deal.

The so-called "Iran deal," introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this "superb offer," with Flynn's accusations serving as the "turn down" ahead of the "sorrowful" war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with.

In fact, Flynn would seemingly draw almost verbatim from the ploy described by Brookings in 2009, by stating:

Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened ... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.

Flynn's statement is particularly surreal - considering Yemeni fighters are only targeting Saudi warships because Saudi Arabia is currently waging full-scale war on Yemen. Accused on all sides of war crimes, and with the US itself even restricting weapon sales to Riyadh - if only symbolically - in response to Saudi Arabia's aggression - Flynn still claims that the attack on Saudi Arabia's warship constitutes justification for putting Iran "on notice."

Claiming that Iran is "sponsoring terrorism" throughout the region, when it is currently a major member of the coalition fighting the DIA's "Salafist principality" in both Iraq and Syria is also surreal.

Another prerequisite mentioned in the 2009 Brookings document was the need to move Syria out of the way. It appears that the US' attempts at regime change in Syria have reached their final conclusion, failing overall, but weakening Syria significantly in the process. War on Iran - a nation taxed greatly in fighting US, European, and Persian Gulf-backed terrorist organization in Syria - may be perceived now as more preferable than before the 2011 conflict began.

Meanwhile, the political climate in the West has been so expertly manipulated that the public is either so distracted with identity politics that they are unaware and unconcerned with the prospect of war with Iran, or so hysterical over "Islam" that any nation perceived as being Muslim is seen as justifiably a target of US military aggression - regardless of how divergent any of these alternate realities are from actual reality.

Flynn's statement encapsulates a documented conspiracy drafted under President Bush, implemented under President Obama, and finally coming into full fruition under President Trump, once again illustrating the continuity of agenda that transcends party politics, presidencies, and political rhetoric - driven by immense corporate-financier special interests, not the will of the American public. 

Myanmar Mass Murder Made in America

January 31, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - The Southeast Asian state of Myanmar has recently become the epicentre of an expanding humanitarian crisis. But because the current government of Myanmar is headed by a regime favoured by American and European interests, little attention and even less action has been given to the conflict. 

A January 10, 2017 Guardian article titled, "65,000 Rohingya flee from Myanmar to Bangladesh following crackdown: UN," reports that:

At least 65,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar � a third of them over the past week � since the army launched a crackdown in the north of Rakhine state. 

The figure, released by the UN, marks a sharp escalation in the numbers fleeing a military campaign which rights groups say has been marred by abuses so severe they could amount to crimes against humanity.

The same article claims:

The stories have cast a pall over the young government of Aung San Suu Kyi, with mainly Muslim Malaysia being especially critical. 

Myanmar�s government has said the claims of abuse are fabricated and launched a special commission to investigate the allegations.

However, anyone at all familiar with Myanmar's recent history and the nature of the current government's support base knows that the unfolding tragedy among the Rohingya minority was not only predictable, but with Aung San Suu Kyi coming to power, inevitable.

The fact that Suu Kyi's political party came to power on a decades-long tsunami of US and European cash and political support, despite US-European knowledge of Suu Kyi's supporters harbouring racist, even genocidal intentions toward the Rohingya, makes the West at the very least partially responsible for the current crisis.

The Warning Signs Were There For Years 

The Guardian would also link the violence against the Rohingya to what it calls, "hardline Buddhist monk Wirathu," in the very last paragraph of its article, giving readers little explanation as to just how prominent a role both Wirathu and his saffron-clad followers have played both in bringing Suu Kyi to power and persecuting the Rohingya with genocidal violence.

Such lies of omission are common throughout the Western media indicating a systematic attempt to conceal the true nature of Suu Kyi and her followers. In fact, so contradictory is the image the Western media has built up for Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and the reality of her political movement's violence, that many are unable to accept the truth even when evidence finally becomes widely known.

In 2007, the Western media eagerly reported on what it dubbed the "Saffron Revolution," a political protest led by Suu Kyi's political allies, including thousands of monks wearing their saffron-coloured robes.

But these same activist groups, including various monk "associations" have systematically been involved in the persecution of and violence against Myanmar's Rohingya minority.

Occasional articles like the UK Independent's 2012 report titled, "Burma's monks call for Muslim community to be shunned," reveal both Myanmar's "hardline Buddhists" and even activist groups celebrated in the West for "promoting democracy" are involved in persecuting the Rohingya.

The report would state:

Monks who played a vital role in Burma's recent struggle for democracy have been accused of fuelling ethnic tensions in the country by calling on people to shun a Muslim community that has suffered decades of abuse. 

In a move that has shocked many observers, some monks' organisations have issued pamphlets telling people not to associate with the Rohingya community, and have blocked humanitarian assistance from reaching them. One leaflet described the Rohingya as "cruel by nature" and claimed it had "plans to exterminate" other ethnic groups.

The Independent would also admit that:

Ko Ko Gyi, a democracy activist with the 88 Generation Students group and a former political prisoner, said: "The Rohingya are not a Burmese ethnic group. The root cause of the violence� comes from across the border."

It is difficult to discern what then, the Western media means by "democracy activist" when such "activists" openly display racism, bigotry, discrimination, and support a growing conflict that involves both calls for genocide, and violence aimed at carrying out genocide. The 88 Generation Students group has for years repeatedly weighed in on the Rohingya conflict, backing calls to deny them citizenship, voting rights and even basic human rights.


Myanmar's Minister of Information Was Trained by America 

Not only has the US and UK substantially funded and backed Suu Kyi's political party, but ministers within her government have been trained by US-funded programmes, including Myanmar's current Minister of Information Pe Myint.

The Myanmar Times article, "Who�s who: Myanmar�s new cabinet," would provide Pe Myint's background, reporting (our emphasis):

Formerly a doctor with a degree from the Institute of Medicine, U Pe Myint changed careers after 11 years and received training as a journalist at the Indochina Media Memorial Foundation in Bangkok. He then embarked on a career as a writer, penning dozens of novels. He participated in the International Writing Program at the University of Iowa in 1998, and was also editor-in-chief of The People�s Age Journal. He was born in Rakhine State in 1949.

The Indochina Media Memorial Foundation (IMMF) in Bangkok is run by the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT), a collection of US and European media representatives. And according to a Wikileaks document titled,  "An Overview of Northern Thailand-Based Burmese Media Orgranizations," the IMMF's funding is revealed (our emphasis):

Other organizations, some with a scope beyond Burma, also add to the educational opportunities for Burmese journalists. The Chiang Mai-based Indochina Media Memorial Foundation, for instance, last year completed training courses for Southeast Asian reporters that included Burmese participants. Major funders for journalism training programs in the region include the NED, Open Society Institute (OSI), and several European governments and charities.

The NED (National Endowment for Democracy) is both funded and directed by the US Congress and the US State Department. In essence, Myanmar's current Minister of Information and the lies his ministry tells on a daily basis, particularly in regards to his government's brutality toward the Rohingya, has been made possible in part by US government funding and support.

The fact that the Western media is still stepping around Suu Kyi and her supporters' role in the violence against the Rohingya, indicates that support is still being provided.

It appears that the plight of the Rohingya will, if anything, only be further exploited to deepen the West's influence over Myanmar's current government. While human rights abuses real or imagined have been used to justify entire wars waged by Western military forces elsewhere, very real abuses in Myanmar are being carefully spun to protect the very government and its support base responsible for carrying them out.

Such transparent hypocrisy exposes Western foreign policy as entirely predicated on opportunism and self-interest rather than any actual principle. Many times, as is the case in Myanmar, such opportunism and self-interest find themselves trampling such principles entirely.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

Health benefits of sex and love

Health benefits of sex and love

Besides putting a spring in your step, romance can bring some positive health benefits.

Some scientific studies suggest that a loving relationship, physical touch and sex can bring health benefits such as lower blood pressure. Of course, no relationship can guarantee health and happiness, but cupid's arrow can send you some health boosts.

Sex is good for your heart

 

Want to get healthy and have fun at the same time? Anything that exercises your heart is good for you, including sex.

Sexual arousal sends the heart rate higher, and the number of beats per minute reaches its peak during orgasm. But as with most exercise, it depends how vigorously you do it. Some studies show that the average peak heart rate at orgasm is the same as during light exercise, such as walking upstairs. That's not enough to keep most people fit and healthy.

It's recommended adults do at least 150 minutes (two-and-a-half hours) of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, such as cycling or fast walking, every week.

Unless you're lucky enough to have 150 minutes of orgasms a week, try cycling, brisk walking or dancing.

Embracing someone special can lower blood pressure, according to researchers.

Having heart disease doesn't have to hold you back in the bedroom. Experts advise that you can usually have sex as long as you can do the everyday activities that have the same impact on your heart without causing chest pain, such as walking up two flights of stairs.

A hug keeps tension away

 

Embracing someone special can lower blood pressure, according to researchers. In one experiment, couples who held each other's hands for 10 minutes followed by a 20-second hug had healthier reactions to subsequent stress, such as public speaking. Compared to couples who rested quietly without touching, the huggers had:

• lower heart rate 
• lower blood pressure
• smaller heart rate increases.

So give your partner a hug - it may help to keep your blood pressure healthy.

Sex can be a stress buster

 

Workload too high? Hot and bothered after the morning commute to work? Sex could help you beat the stresses of 21st century living, according to a small study of 46 men and women.
Participants kept a diary of sexual activity, recording penetrative sex, non-penetrative sex and masturbation. In stress tests, including public speaking and doing mental arithmetic out loud, the people who had no sex at all had the highest stress levels. People who only had penetrative sex had the smallest rise in blood pressure (this shows that they coped better with stress).
Plenty of people find that intimacy or orgasm without penetration helps them feel relaxed, as does exercise or meditation. It doesn't have to be penetrative sex; it's whatever works for you.

Weekly sex might help fend off illness

 

There's a link between how often you have sex and how strong your immune system is, researchers say. A study in Pennsylvania found that students who had sex once or twice a week had higher levels of an important illness-fighting substance in their bodies. Immunoglobulin A (IgA) was 30% higher in those who had sex once or twice a week than in those who had no sex at all. However, the lowest levels were in people who had sex more than twice a week.
But don't feel the need to start your sex calendar just yet, although initial studies are positive; more research is needed before it can be proved that weekly sex helps your immune system.
Another study found that stroking a dog resulted in raised IgA levels in students (resting quietly or stroking a stuffed dog didn't).

People who have sex feel healthier

 

It could be that people who feel healthier have more sex. But there seems to be a link between sexual activity and your sense of wellbeing. A study of 3,000 Americans aged 57-85 showed that those who were having sex rated their general health higher than those who weren't.
And it's not just sex, it's love too. People who were in a close relationship or married were more likely to say they felt in 'very good' or 'excellent' health than just 'good' or 'poor'. It seems that emotional and social support can boost our sense of wellbeing.

Loving support reduces risk of angina and ulcer

 

A happy marriage can help to fend off angina and stomach ulcer – at least it can if you're a man.
One study of 10,000 men found that those who felt 'loved and supported' by their spouse had a reduced risk of angina. This was the case even if they had other risk factors, such as being older or having raised blood pressure.
Similarly, a study of 8,000 men found there was more chance of them getting a duodenal ulcer if they:

• had family problems 
• didn't feel loved and supported by their wife
• didn't retaliate when hurt by colleagues. (In other words, they repressed their anger. Researchers called this their 'coping style'.)

Researchers suggest that stress, lack of social support and coping style can affect a man's likelihood of developing an ulcer.

And if you're single

 

Spending an evening with friends is good for your health too.
One 10-year study of 1,500 people over 70 years old found that those with stronger friendship networks lived longer than those with fewer friends. Researchers thought this could be due to friends having a positive influence on lifestyle choices, such as smoking or exercise, and offering emotional support.

Or celibate.

 

A life without sex is no bar to excellent health. A long-term study into the health and ageing of a group of nearly 700 older nuns found that many are keeping active and well into their 90s and past 100.
Since 1986, participants in The Nun Study have had yearly checks on their physical and mental abilities. Researchers have used convent records to obtain their social, family and educational background. While they've found some links between lifestyle and dementia (for example, higher education or positive emotions in early life might cut the risk of dementia), this isn't linked to sexual activity.