Monday, December 30, 2019
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Friday, December 27, 2019
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Monday, December 23, 2019
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Friday, December 20, 2019
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Monday, December 16, 2019
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Friday, November 29, 2019
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Trump vs. Warren And The Fake Battle Against The Elites
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.
It seems like a simple and easy to identify pattern, but for some reason the public keeps falling for the same old globalist tricks. A well-worn tactic the money elites use to endear certain puppet political candidates to Americans is to encourage those candidates to use anti-elitist rhetoric, only to then flood their cabinets with those same elites once they get into office. The rule of politics seems to be, “Say whatever you want to get the people on your side, but once you're in office, you do as we tell you...”
These candidates will aggressively attack the banks, corporations and wall street, lamenting the rapid decline of the middle class or “working class”. They will point out that a mere handful of ultra-rich, the top 1%, control more wealth than nearly half of the population combined. They will seize upon the travesties of the poor and argue for “change” to bring balance back to the system. They will pretend to expose the crimes of the banking cabal and the upper echelons of Wall Street. They will put on a grand show; and then, they will do the bidding of their masters and play the role they were groomed for...
Americans are suckers for fake “people's candidates” and always have been.
But perhaps I should expand on this with some real world examples. How about Jimmy Carter, who started out his presidential campaign with a dismal 4% in the Democratic polls. Carter would go on to explode in popularity after attacking what he referred to as the “Washington insiders”, the elites that ran the show from behind the curtain. A widely distributed paperback book that promoted Carter during his campaign called “I'll Never Lie To You: Jimmy Carter In His Own Words” quoted the candidate as saying at a Boston rally:
“The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.”
His own top aide, Hamilton Jordan, promised:
“If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.”
Carter was portrayed as a statesman free from connections to the globalists; a religious man and veritable white knight pure in his associations. This was viewed as an important image to maintain at the time. After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the presidential candidacy of true anti-globalist Barry Goldwater and the highly questionable role of Henry Kissinger in Richard Nixon's administration, the public was growing increasingly suspicious of the nature of government and who was really in charge. Carter was initially seen as a cure for the public's distrust.
Of course, as soon as Carter entered office he injected no less than ten members of the globalist Trilateral Commission and numerous other elites into key positions in his administration, including Cy Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. And of course, his top aide never quit. The elites knew exactly what the public wanted at that moment in history, and so they gave it to them in the form of Jimmy Carter. Carter's administration would go on to serve numerous globalist interests, but this attracted the ire of the American public, who felt betrayed.
How about another example of fake anti-globalists and anti-elites?
Enter Ronald Reagan, the anti-Carter. The conservative (and former democrat) who wasn't afraid to point out that Carter was surrounded by Trilateral Commission ghouls and question his honesty. Reagan attacked Carter while maintaining a distance from more “conspiratorial” language. Reagan stated in 1980 during his campaign:
“I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction...”
Reagan, like Carter, was touted as having no affiliations with the elites. He was pure and unsullied by the globalists. But alas, Reagan also quickly picked at least 10 Trilateral Commission members for his transition team once he was elected, and he served the interests of the elites throughout his two terms in the White House (for the most part) under the watchful eye of George H.W. Bush.
If this is starting to sound familiar then you are probably more awake and aware than most. The elites use the same strategies over and over and over again, usually with minor variances to keep things fresh. As many of my readers are well aware, I have been consistently pointing out the fraudulent anti-globalist image of Donald Trump the past few years, and his administration has followed a very similar path to those described above with a few important differences.
Trump ran his campaign as a populist and opponent of the elites. His image was that of a person untouched by the influence of the establishment. In fact, the primary argument among his supporters was that Trump was “so rich” that he “could not be bought”. He criticized Hillary Clinton and her deep state connections with banks like Goldman Sachs and announced that once in office he would “drain the swamp” of special interests in Washington.
He also made bold accusations against the Federal Reserve, pointing out that the supposed “economic recovery” and the stock market rally was a fraud; a bubble created through stimulus and near zero interest rates that he didn't want to inherit. Trump was yet another pure white knight ready to expose and do battle with the globalist dragon.
As many liberty activists are well aware by now, Trump is the furthest thing from an anti-globalist. Like Carter and Reagan, Trump swiftly loaded his cabinet with elites from the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. His background was also not so pure; Trump had in fact been bought a couple decades in advance by the Rothschild banking family. Rothschild agent Wilber Ross was the man who brokered the deal to bail Trump out of his massive debts in multiple properties in Atlantic City, saving Trumps fortune and his image. Today, Wilber Ross is Trump's commerce secretary.
Trump also completely shifted his position on the economy, taking full credit for the stock market bubble as well as the fake GDP numbers and fake unemployment numbers he had attacked during his campaign. Trump has now completely tied his administration to the Everything Bubble – a bubble that has been popped and is now deflating into a hard recession.
Trump's theatrical character is different from Carter and Reagan in a couple of ways. First, in the Carter era, the public had a wider trust of the mainstream media, and so, Carter was presented as a media darling. Today, the majority of the public has a severe distaste of the media, and so, Trump was presented as their enemy; a thorn in their side. The media attacks on Trump only garnered him MORE attention and favor with conservatives and independents.
Second, Trump's acting role as an anti-globlist in the new world order screenplay is far more important to the elites than Carter or Reagan. Trump is meant to become a symbol of ALL anti-globalism, a nexus point and representative of sovereignty activism. He is meant to co-opt the entire liberty movement, and then sink it into oblivion. In other words, as the economy crumbles around Trump, conservatives and liberty proponents are made guilty by association.
Trump serves the elites by pretending to be starkly anti-establishment while at the same time taking credit for their economic works, not to mention the blame for the collapse of the bubble the establishment created.
But what happens after Trump? Who is next in line to take the lead role in the globalist theater for the American masses? Again, it's important to remember that the elites are not very imaginative, but they do have a lot of practice with tried and true tactics. They will present us with a candidate that is decidedly anti-Trump, but who also continues certain projects that Trump started.
Enter Elizabeth Warren...
Warren is yet another candidate that is being groomed as "unaffiliated" with the elites. Her image as the “daughter of a janitor” from the American midwest who went on to succeed as a woman in a “man's world” is heavily pushed in the media. But here is why I think Warren is the most likely political anti-thesis to Trump and the most likely Democratic candidate; the screenplay essentially writes itself...
Consider this – Warren grows up in a lower middle class family in Oklahoma, the daughter of a lowly service worker. Trump grows up rich, the son of a real estate tycoon who inherits a fortune.
Trump is a billionaire businessman and member of the 1% whose economic policies and tax cuts have consistently favored corporations and stock markets over the middle class. Warren claims she is a “capitalist”, but wants restrictions on stock market buybacks and Wall Street in general, accusing it of being nothing more than a money generator for the super wealthy.
Trump has faced bankruptcy on numerous occasions and his administration sits at the doorstep of the highest national, consumer and corporate debt levels in American history. Warren's background is in bankruptcy and bankruptcy law.
Trump has taken full credit for the economic bubble and boasts about his influence over markets regularly while completely ignoring the crash in fundamentals as well as his own warnings in 2016. Warren is the ONLY democratic candidate so far to predict an economic crash in the near term.
The differences in image are important here, but there are also some similarities between Trump and Warren in terms of policy.
Trump's economic policies demand ever lower interest rates and higher levels of central bank stimulus in order to work. He won't get exactly what he wants, but he is demanding endless central bank intervention all the same. Elizabeth Warren is a proponent of Neoclassical Economics, which is closely tied to Keynesian economics. Warren was also on the oversight committee for the TARP bailout, and can claim that she's intimately familiar with monetary stimulus measures. Real QE4 and near zero interest rates (not just repo purchases) would be more likely under Warren, after the “Trump collapse”. In fact, it is likely that Warren would demand and get MMT (modern monetary theory) policies passed.
Trump has instituted aggressive tariff measures against China and the trade war continues unabated so far. Warren also wants to continue hard-line policies against China, while at the same time blaming Trump for starting the conflict in the first place.
Finally, like Trump, Warren has long been a hawk in support of Israel and it is likely that US troops will be staying in the Middle East for many years to come if she is elected. She will criticize certain aspects of Israel's Palestinian policy to appeal to the Democratic base. But, like Trump, her actions will not match her rhetoric.
The setup of this story is almost too perfect. Midwestern middle class girl and self made professional takes on a boastful arrogant billionaire and the 1%. Democrat voters love this kind of garbage. But it doesn't stop there...
Warren's attacks on billionaires are gaining extreme media attention, and the media loves it. Her latest ad campaign criticized four rich guys by name, including Leon Cooperman, the former Ameritrade CEO Joe Ricketts, the former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and the investor Peter Thiel. Some of these men have responded publicly and angrily, and so another great farce of a wrestling match begins and propels another supposedly anti-establishment candidate into stardom.
But here's the thing – Warren's wealth tax is not so anti-establishment. Elites like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have been openly calling for higher taxes on the super-rich. In tandem with the wealth tax, her climate change position is seen as a shot across the bow of oil companies and the financial power structure. Yet, her policies are almost exactly in line with the Green New Deal and the UN's Agenda 2030, which the globalists greatly desire.
Warren's image as anti-establishment? It's as fake as Trump's image.
Warren has been featured multiple times in the magazine Foreign Affairs, the official magazine of the Council On Foreign Relations. On top of that they published her article "A Foreign Policy for All: Strengthening Democracy - at Home and Abroad”. For those that are unaware, the CFR is the premier globalist organization and its membership roster is saturated with many of the billionaire elites Warren claims to stand against. Yet, she has courted Foreign Affairs many times and they have written about her favorably.
Another interesting little fact is that the CFR does not publish articles by presidential candidates often. In fact, candidates that do get their articles published by Foreign Affairs tend to become president, or get a massive boost in their polling numbers and cash support. An example of this would be Richard Nixon, who suffered a stream of campaign failures until his article “Asia After Vietnam” was published in Foreign Affairs in October 1967. A little over a year later he entered the White House. Another example would be Barack Obama, who published articles in Foreign Affairs in the early stages of his 2008 campaign. Getting an article accepted by the CFR seems to be a signal that the candidate in question is ready to be useful to the establishment.
Warren's explosion in the polls relative to candidates like Joe Biden started a few months after her article was published in the CFR magazine. So far she is the only candidate graced with an article in Foreign Affairs.
Does this mean that the elites want Warren over Donald Trump in 2020? Not necessarily. It is still too early to identify the trend and the signals for the next election. I believe next spring will bring clarity on the matter. However, the point remains that almost every candidate that is given serious consideration within the system is controlled or is seeking favor with the elites. The election process is highly moderated. Good people are not allowed to get though the net. Those that get close are ridiculed and then ignored until their campaigns fade into obscurity.
The candidates that serve the purposes of the elites get endless attention in the media, sometimes positive and sometimes negative, but they are never ignored. And, above all, the candidates that are most likely to be chosen as president are those that pretend to be anti-establishment. This is what sells with the American public, and the globalists know it. Warren is following this pattern, just as Trump did.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Friday, November 22, 2019
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Sunday, November 17, 2019
The Globalists Are Openly Admitting To Their Population Control Agenda - And That's A Bad Sign...
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.
Eugenics and population control are long
time hobbies of the financial elites. In the early 1900's, the
Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute were deeply involved
in promoting Eugenics laws in the US.
These laws led to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 American
citizens in states like California and thousands of rejected marriage
licenses. The Eugenics programs in the US were only a beta test though,
as the Rockefellers then transferred their programs over to Germany
under Hitler and the Third Reich in the 1930's, where a true widespread
eugenics-based population control program was introduced.
The targets of population reduction were based on ethnic background, but also “mental intelligence” and economic status. The Carnegie Institute even established a “Eugenics Records Office” called Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory in 1904, which collected genetic data on millions of Americans and their families with the intent of controlling their numbers and erasing certain traits from the US population. The Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory still exists today and presents itself as a kind of philanthropic endeavor to help humanity.
Public knowledge of the globalists and their population control agenda was carefully swept under the rug in the US after the exposure of Nazi programs post-WWII. The word “eugenics” became a very ugly one and all the effort the elites put into promoting it as a legitimate science was ruined.
However, they were not going to give up on their precious ideology.
In the late 1960's into the 1970's there was a resurgence of population control rhetoric coming out of globalist circles. Under the supervision of the UN and some related scientific groups, the Club Of Rome was formed. A prominent part of the Club of Rome's agenda was population reduction. In 1972 the group of “scientists” under the UN's direction published a paper called 'The Limits Of Growth', which called for greatly reduced human population in the name of “saving the environment”. This effort was directly linked to another agenda – the institution of a global government that could handle and enforce population controls on a wide scale.
The elites had found a new scientific front for their eugenics obsession: Climate science. In the early 1990's the Club Of Rome published a book called 'The First Global Revolution'. In it they state:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator. It also outlines the perfect rationale for population control – Mankind is the enemy, therefore, mankind as a species must be kept under strict supervision and his proliferation must be restricted.
The Club of Rome and the UN agenda have always been intimately connected. In the 1990's at the same time 'The First Global Revolution' was being published, UN assistant secretary general Robert Muller was publishing his manifesto which is now collected on a website called 'Good Morning World'. Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of “protecting the Earth” and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental Apocalypse, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary nanny state to keep society from destroying itself.
In a paper titled 'Proper Earth Government: A Framework And Ways To Create It' Robert Muller outlines how climate change could be used to convince the masses of the need for global government. Integral to his plan were the introduction of a new “global religion”, and population controls.
It should come as no surprise that the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) and that this panel and it's offshoots are now at the forefront of the argument for population reduction. As we close in on the end date for the UN's Agenda 2030, which calls for a radical shift of human production from oil and other large scale energy sources into small scale “renewable energies”, there is only 10 years left for the globalists to achieve their goals if they hope to meet their announced deadline. This would require a violent change in human society and most of all industrialized nations.
The human population would have to be reduced dramatically in order to survive on the meager energy output of renewables alone. A disaster of epic proportions would have to take place soon so that the globalists could then spend the next decade using the resulting fear to convince the surviving population that global governance is needed. Without aggressive crisis and change most people would never go along with the UN's agenda, out of simple desire for self preservation. Even many leftists, once exposed to the true nature of carbon controls and population reduction, might have second thoughts when they realize they could be affected.
The key to understanding people who cheer for population control or population reduction is that these people always assume that THEY will be the survivors and inheritors of the Earth after the culling. They never assume that they will be the one's put on the chopping block.
In 2019, the population agenda is being ramped into high gear and the public is being carefully conditioned over time to accept the idea that man-made climate change is real and population is the source of the problem. Recently, a group of scientists partially funded by something called the “Worthy Garden Club” claimed 11,000 signatures on a statement for the need for population reduction in the name of saving the Earth from global warming.
The statement cites all the same long debunked IPCC and UN climate change propaganda as the reasons why the Earth is on the verge of annihilation. The fact of the matter is, climate scientists have been consistently caught red handed manipulating their own data to show the intended outcome of global warming. They have even been caught trying to adjust their own data from 20 years ago in order to match it more closely to the rigged data they publish today.
The Worthy Garden Club is a strangely sterile group and there doesn't seem to be any list of their patrons and who funds them. However, the mainstream media was quick to pick up on the statement from the “11,000 scientists” and tie it to statements made by the UN's IPCC.
Population control has also been brought up consistently as an issue in the 2020 Presidential Election race. Bernie Sanders argued for birth control measures in poor countries. Elizabeth Warren promoted abortion by saying it was as safe as “getting your tonsils removed”. She has consistently promoted the carbon control agenda of the UN and was, interestingly, a member of the University Of Texas Population research Center in the 1980s. And, Green New Deal politicians are throwing their support behind the statements from the Worthy Garden Club on population reduction.
This is the first time I have seen the argument for population reduction used so blatantly and widespread in the mainstream media, and it suggests to me that a trend is forming. For years I have warned my readers that they will know when the globalists are about to pull the plug on the current system when they start talking about their criminality openly. When they admit to their agenda in a free way, this means they are close to a global reset and do not care anymore who knows about it.
The openness of the plan to cut world population is becoming apparent.
Strangely, there has been little mention of the fact that the world population, in the west most of all, is actually in decline. Far from exploding beyond the Earth's capacity, people are barely having enough children to keep the current population stable. It would appear that the globalist agenda is already in motion. Through engineered economic disintegration, the population is being slowly reduced.
However, this slow decline may not be enough to satisfy the globalists.
How many people would the globalists like to kill off to achieve their utopian aspirations? Well, globalist Ted Turner in a moment of honesty said when confronted by We Are Change that the population should be reduced to 2 billion down from 7 billion.
The primary issue here beyond the moral horror show of eugenics is, who gets cut? And furthermore, who gets to decide who gets cut? Who gets to decide if you can have children or not? Who gets to decide if you are allowed to access resources to produce and make a living or not? Who gets to decide if the global economy will sustain the population or not? Who pulls the trigger on the culling of the population?
As history has shown us, it is always the elites that end up in the position of deciding the fates of millions or billions. From the Rockefeller Foundation sterilization programs in the US in the early 1900's to the UN today, the globalists, a veritable death cult, are desperate to conjure a rationalization as to why they should be the ones to allow or deny human life based on lies like man-made climate change. They don't believe in the climate change threat, THEY were the people that fabricated it.
So, what is the core reason behind all of this?
A reduced population completely dependent on limited energy sources might be easier to dominate. But I have another theory – they are psychopaths looking for a socially justifiable way to kill as many people as possible. Why? because they enjoy it.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Friday, November 15, 2019
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Trump Impeachment And The Civil War Scenario
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.
There has been a lot of talk the past
year about a civil war in the US, so much so that even the mainstream
media is pushing the concept lately. A poll from Rasmussen in 2018
claimed that 31% of US voters believed that America would see a second
civil war within the next five years. A more recent poll from The Institute Of Politics And Public Service shows that 7 out of 10 voters believe the US is two-thirds of the way towards civil war.
New talk of “impeachment” over the Ukraine issue has stirred the soup even further as some conservatives argue that if Trump is removed from office a war will erupt.
I want to be absolutely clear and state that I remain highly skeptical that the impeachment circus is anything more than another distraction for the public, and I believe that it will go nowhere (just like Russiagate). That said I do think there is a marginal chance of a 4th Gen play here by the globalists. A civil war, if directed and manipulated in the right way, could benefit the elites greatly as long as it's combined with a few other ingredients.
First, we have to understand what the real situation here is, though. As my readers are well aware, I predicted well before the 2016 election that Trump as president would be the perfect scapegoat for the implosion of the 'Everything Bubble'. That implosion is happening in nearly all fundamental economic indicators right now, as I outlined in my last article. There are two questions to consider at this point: Will stock markets follow fundamentals down before the 2020 election? And, if stocks remain high, will it even matter with the rest of the system tumbling into recession?
In January of 2016 at during his election campaign, Donald Trump said that the US economy was 'In a bubble he feared would burst and he did not want to deal with a financial collapse if he was elected to the White House.' He called on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and stop propping up the fake markets.
In 2019, Trump has attached his administration completely to the performance of markets with endless Twitter comments, taking full credit for the financial bubble that he once criticized. He has also now called for the Fed to bring interest rates down to zero to artificially support the economy once again (Obviously we have to ask the big question - If this is the "greatest US economy ever", then why would Trump want the Fed to introduce more stimulus to prop it up?). I believe this bizarre behavior is entirely deliberate on Trump's part and that he intends to take the blame for the ongoing crash. If stocks fall along with the rest of the economy by the end of 2020, it is unlikely that the globalists plan to keep him around for a second term. His job acting as a scapegoat for the crisis the central banks created will be accomplished.
Second, my readers are also aware that I have outlined the connections between Trump and the globalists, including how a large part of his fortune and his image was saved by a bailout from the Rothschild family during the 1990's. Wilber Ross, the Rothchild agent who arranged the deal, is now Trump's Commerce Secretary. Ross' presence in Trump's cabinet along with numerous other elites, such as Pompeo, Mnuchin, Lightheizer, Kudlow and a host of other Council on Foreign Relations members indicates that Trump is and probably always has been controlled opposition. When one elite cycles out of Trump's cabinet, another one just takes his place.
I hear the argument often that the supposed impeachment proceedings are “proof” that the globalists are trying to destroy Trump. This is clearly nonsense, as Trump continues to work closely with such elites on a daily basis. The more likely explanation is that, like Russiagate, the impeachment itself is a farce designed to keep the American public sharply divided and ready to go to war at a moment's notice. In fact, the chances of the Ukraine debacle blowing back on Joe Biden and his campaign in the Democratic Primaries are high.
Biden is obviously NOT the candidate that the elites intend to run on the Democrat side, and the Ukraine theater creates a rationale for him to bow out while also conjuring ever more anger on both sides of the political canyon. But does this mean that Trump will not be impeached? Not necessarily...
Trump is in the position he is in for a reason. Trump is a useful pawn in a number of ways as long as his influence over conservatives remains strong and his position can be exploited to maximum effect. For example, in my most likely scenario, a market crash swiftly follows the current plunge in fundamentals before the 2020 election. This essentially ensures Trump's defeat in November, while his conservative supporters and conservative principles in general take the blame for the disaster.
However, what if the elites are seeking to add even more chaos to the cauldron?
An impeachment leading into the election, whether successful or not, could be used to enrage conservatives and trigger a violent reaction against the Democrats specifically. If Trump loses the election or never makes it to the election due to impeachment, a host of outcomes will occur that are beneficial to the globalists even though Trump is one of their puppets:
1) The impeachment scenario will make rabid leftists feel vindicated in their insane behavior the past few years. It will reward them and inspire them to act even crazier.
2) Conservatives could be pushed over the edge into direct action, but unfortunately, if this direct action is aimed haphazardly at the political left and democrats, conservatives will have been conned. The globalists WANT us fighting over a meaningless puppet like Trump. They WANT us to direct our anger at the Democrats instead of at them.
3) If we are stupid enough to fight a war over Trump, this will lead to some detrimental results. Conservatives, though feeling justified in their actions, will look like villains, fighting to protect a leader that destroyed the US economy causing untold public suffering, as well as a leader that most of the world will see as personally corrupt. Trump is not a resilient long term inspiration for a rebellion, he's not even a good short term inspiration.
4) Rebellions need focus and a set of strong principles and virtues in order to stay alive. If they are freedom fighters, then the establishment will seek to make them look like they are not freedom fighters, but self serving terrorists or agents of a foreign power. This process has already been started by the elites. Trump is the tool for co-option of the liberty movement. Impeachment could be a trigger for luring the movement to rebel under false pretenses and attack the wrong people (the leftists are only a symptom of the disease, the globalists ARE the disease).
5) A civil war that does not seek to target the globalists as the root problem could be easily molded by the globalists into a scapegoat for whatever calamity they desire. An economic crash under Trump would attach a lot of peripheral blame to conservatives. But, an economic crash and a civil war over Trump's impeachment would attach ALL the blame to conservatives. Conservatives become the bad guys of the age, the people that almost ended the world, the people that future generations will be taught to despise as examples of the “evils of nationalism and populism”.
6) A war fought in the name of faulty principles and a failed leader would provide a reason for the globalists to pursue an international response to the crisis. And again, this would not look like an invasion of American sovereignty, but a global attempt to “keep the peace”.
So what is the solution? Is this a Catch-22 that conservatives cannot escape from? I've long held that a war between liberty activists and the globalists is inevitable, if not long overdue. The globalists know that this war is coming, as well. 4th Generation Warfare tactics dictate that the globalists will try to trick liberty activists into fighting this war on their terms. That is to say, the globalists will seek to turn us (their opponents) into unwitting allies. The Trump impeachment strategy could very well provide them with that kind of psychological leverage.
It would be seen by many conservatives as a Democratic party coup and a violation of the constitution. With leftist activists so viciously cult-like and so far beyond all logic or reason, the political left and political right might end up shooting at each other anyway. The issue is the narrative under which this occurs.
If liberty activists stay focused on the primary objective (removing the globalists from power), instead of being lured into focusing all their energy on the Democrats, then the scenario changes. If conservatives remain skeptical and critical of Trump's associations and activities, this makes it difficult for the elites to paint us as “Trump's brownshirts”. Certain people within the liberty movement have not been helpful in this regard; blindly defending Trump at every turn no matter how many elites he brings into his cabinet or how many times he takes credit for the economic bubble.
Some of these people have indeed called for a civil war in the name of stopping a Trump impeachment. They have become useful idiots for the globalist agenda.
If a war is fought, it must be over a concrete set of contentions. If a Democrat enters the White House after the 2020 election and attempts to institute major gun control and gun confiscation measures, then this is a perfectly solid reason to fight. If they try to enforce carbon restrictions that would destroy what's left of our economy and cause suffering among the public, then this is another good reason to fight. If they try to legislate even more socialist programs, usurping constitutional parameters and taxing the populace into perpetual poverty, then yes, we should fight. But Trump? No, Trump is a pied piper, not a leader or a rationale for civil war.
Now, I realize that the above scenario I describe is extreme, but I do see it as a possibility, so it's important to recognize that it is there waiting to be used by the establishment against us. That said, there are other more likely outcomes.
The impeachment could rally conservatives to vote in larger numbers in 2020, and if the markets hold out through the year, then Trump is probably slated for a second term. A second term would indicate that the elites need Trump for another event (perhaps a regional war) on top of the market crash, which would take place directly after Trump's reelection.
The Ukraine issue might merely be designed to undermine Joe Biden's candidacy, paving the way for either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (I don't see another serious run by Hillary Clinton in the cards, Bloomberg is a joke even among many Democrats and I still predict Elizabeth Warren will be the Dem candidate in 2020). If the markets crash, or if the currently crashing fundamentals hit main street hard enough, then Trump will be ousted and the Dems will take over, blaming him and conservatives for every financial mess for the next four years (or more).
At this point in the game, it's hard to say which option the globalists will use. It is vital, though, that we remember that the impeachment is a farce in more ways than one. The target is not Trump, the target is us.
The Economic Crash So Far: A Look At The Real Numbers
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group
There are many problems when attempting to track a faltering economy. For one, the people in government generally do not want the public to know when the system is in decline because this looks bad for them. They prefer to rig statistical indicators as much as possible and hope that no one notices. When the crash occurs, they then claim that “no one saw it coming” and the disaster “came out of nowhere”, so how could they be to blame?
I have even heard it argued that political leaders, including the president, have a “duty” to lie about the state of the economy because once they admit to the decline they will cause a panic and perpetuate the crisis. This is stupidity. If an economic system is in disrepair and is built on a faulty foundation, then the problems should be identified and fixed immediately. The weak businesses should be culled, not bailed out. The wasteful government spending should be cut, not increased. The downturn should not be hidden and prolonged for years or decades. In most cases, this only makes the inevitable crash far worse and more damaging.
Another factor, which some people might call “conspiracy theory” – but it has been proven time and time again in history – is that the money elites have a tendency to engineer economic disasters while deliberately hiding the real statistics from the public. Why? Well, if the real data was widely disseminated, then a crash would not be much of a surprise and the populace could be prepared for it. I suspect the elites hide the data because they WANT the crash to be a surprise. The bigger the shock, the bigger the psychological effect on the masses. This fear and confusion allows them to make changes in the power structure of a nation or of the entire world that they would not be able to accomplish otherwise.
The most rigged statistics tend to be the least important overall in analysis, but this does not stop the mainstream media and investors from hyper focusing on them. How many times have you told friends and family about the collapse in manufacturing or the explosion in consumer and corporate debt, only to hear them say, “But the stock market is at all-time highs!” Yes, even though stock markets are a meaningless trailing indicator, even though GDP stats are a complete fallacy, and even though jobless numbers do not include tens of millions of people out of work, these are the stats that the average person takes mental note of when consuming their standard 15 minutes of news per day.
While the issue of rigged statistics makes analysis of a crash difficult, a willfully ignorant citizenry makes reporting on the real data almost impossible. It’s sad to say, but a large number of people do not want to hear about negative information. They want to believe that all is well, and will delude themselves with fantasies of blind optimism and endless summers. Like the tale of “The Ant And The Grasshopper”, they are grasshoppers and they see anyone who focuses on the negative as “chicken littles” and “doom mongers”. In their minds they have all the time in the world, until they freeze and starve when winter comes.
When I encounter people who actually believe the manipulated numbers or buy into the stock market farce or simply don’t want to accept that a crash could happen in their lifetime, I always ask them to consider these questions: If the global economy is not on the verge of collapse, then why did central banks keep propping it up for the past ten years? And if central banks have been propping up the system, how much longer do you think they can do this? How much longer do you think they want to do it? What if one day they decide to let the entire house of cards tumble? What if such an event actually benefits them?
We’ve seen that a broken economy can be technically held together for a decade, but under the surface, the structure continues to rot. The bottom line is that even if the elites wanted to keep the system going for another ten years, and even if politicians continued to help them by pumping out false statistics, there is no way to hide the effects of crumbling fundamentals. We saw this during the crash of 2008, and now we’re seeing it again.
After nearly ten years of stimulus inflated the largest financial bubble in history (the Everything Bubble), the Federal Reserve and other central banks halted stimulus measures and tightened global liquidity. By the end of 2018, a new crash began, the implosion of the Everything Bubble had been triggered. All of this is still just an extension of the crash of 2008, which never really subsided; it was only slowed down through tens of trillions of dollars in central bank intervention. Now, the central banks have started an avalanche that cannot be stopped. But the fact of the matter is, they don’t really want to stop it.
Here are the indicators so far that prove a crash is happening in the U.S. while a majority of the public is oblivious:
GDP numbers are completely manipulated. Government spending of taxpayer dollars on a number of inflated programs, including continued spending on Obamacare, is added to GDP calculations. Without this fancy accounting, U.S. GDP growth would actually be negative, according to ShadowStats. But even with the juiced data, official GDP growth is still in decline, falling to 1.9% and well below the 3% growth we were supposed to see this year.
Official unemployment stats remain at all-time lows, which is commonly cited by the mainstream media, Donald Trump (he used to argue the opposite three years ago), and even the Federal Reserve in reference to the health and stability of the economy. What they do not mention much is the 95 million people not in the labor force and not counted because they have been unemployed for so long.
When the media does mention this fact, they claim the number is “misleading”, that most of these people are students or retired, that the retirement age is decreasing and Baby Boomers are leaving the workforce sooner, and that the people who don’t have jobs are simply “not interested” in working.
None of this is true.
The retirement age is increasing in the U.S., not decreasing, according the SS Administration. Current average retirement age is now 67, up from 65, almost the same as it was during the Great Depression.
Baby Boomers are not retiring at rates similar to ten years ago, and are in fact attempting to stay in the workforce due to the poor economy. Many of them are trying to come OUT of retirement just to make ends meet.
The labor participation rate remains near record lows.
Interestingly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) house survey that is used to determine if people “want a job” assumes that if you are near retirement age and do not have a job, you are simply not interested in a job, and they count you as “non-participating”. However, if you DO have a job and you are near retirement age, they count you as participating. It’s a rather convenient assumption on the government’s part to claim that just because an unemployed person is near retirement age, that means they “don’t want a job”.
While there is surely a small percentage of the 95 million people not counted in the labor force that do not want a job, if unemployment stats counted U-6 measurements as they used to, the unemployment rate would be closer to 20%.
Another problem is the quality of jobs being created. U.S. manufacturing jobs, as well as higher wage jobs, are in steep decline. They have been replaced with low paying jobs in the service sector.
Real wages in the U.S. have not kept up with inflation. The average worker is now losing money overall as prices rise beyond the pace of their incomes.
As more and more Millennials say they cannot afford to buy a home, rental prices have skyrocketed in the past several years. The home ownership rate plunged starting in 2006 and has not recovered since.
U.S. manufacturing has fallen to levels not seen since the crash of 2008. U.S. factory orders have slumped in 2019.
U.S. Services PMI continues to falter since spring of this year. Job growth is now slowing and over 8,500 retail stores have been closed down already in 2019. Web-based retail is not picking up the slack, as online sellers like Amazon are suffering from falling profits.
Corporate profits overall have tumbled this year and projected future profits have been drastically adjusted to the downside.
Corporate debt, consumer debt and national debt are all at historic highs. Corporate cash flow is so tight that Federal Reserve repo purchases continue to run into high demand. This debt signal is one we saw in 2007, just before the credit crisis.
U.S. trucking and railroad freight continue to log steep declines in traffic and goods. This tells us what we already know: Even though consumer spending has increased recently, this does not mean people are buying more stuff or have more disposable income. What is really happening is inflation, or stagflation. Cost of living is going up. Debt payments are going up. Consumers are spending more on the same amount of stuff, or less stuff, and have less expendable income. U.S. consumers are being bled dry.
All of these factors and more show an economy in recession or depression (depending on what historic standards you use). In the darker corners of the investment world, the great hope is that the central banks will return to pumping trillions into the banking sector ($16 trillion during the TARP bailout dwarfs the $250 billion the Fed has recently pumped out in their repo markets). They hope that this will free up even more credit. Meaning, they believe only more debt will save the system from suffering.
I say, time is up on the debt party. More stimulus will not stall the crash that is already happening, and the Fed does not appear poised to print anywhere near what it did during the credit crisis, at least not in time to change the trend. The can has been kicked for the last time. The grasshopper mentality will not save people from the clear reality. Only preparation and planning will.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Saturday, November 9, 2019
Friday, November 8, 2019
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
There Are Things Worth Fighting For, And Fates Far Worse Than Death
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.
Activism in the liberty movement often
requires a painful examination of details. We look at political and
economic trends, identify inconsistencies in the mainstream narrative,
point out inevitable outcomes of disaster or attempts at collectivist
power, and ask – “Who benefits?” Ultimately, the analysts and activists
with any sense of observation come to the same conclusion: There is a
contingent of financial elites embedded within the political world and
the corporate world that have a specific ideology and malicious goals.
They create most geopolitical and economic crisis events using puppets
in government as well as influence in central banking. They then turn
the consequences of these events to their advantage.
This group is identified by their intent as well as their associations. Their intent is utter dominance through globalism to the point that national borders are erased and all trade and governance flows through a single one-world edifice that they seek to control. As Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation’s (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs (pg. 558) in an article titled 'The Hard Road To World Order':
“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
They want to reinvent civilization and mold it into a homogenized and highly micromanaged global hive. Within this collective, they see themselves as not only the future masters of social evolution, but also as demigods that are worshiped by the masses. And, they are willing to do almost ANYTHING to achieve this endgame.
In an article I wrote last year titled 'Global Elitists Are Not Human', I outlined the connection between globalist ideology, globalist actions and the psychology of narcissistic sociopaths (narcopaths or pyschopaths). I theorized that the globalists are in fact a stark example of tightly organized psychopathy. In other words, like a criminal cartel or cult, they are a group of psychopaths that have unified their efforts to become more efficient predators. And like many psychopaths, they have conjured elaborate philosophical explanations for their abhorrent activities to the point that they seem to have developed their own disturbing brand of religion.
There comes a moment in the life of many liberty movement activists or analysts when they are confronted with this reality: The reality that we are not fighting a faceless “system” that was built passively by mistake, or built in the name of mere random greed. No, the system is only an extension of a greater agenda and the weapon of a conspiratorial army. What we are really fighting are very evil people with psychopathic desires to dominate and destroy. Attempt to change the system without removing the cabal behind it, and you will fail every time.
This is where we hit a wall of indecision and find ourselves at an impasse on solutions within the movement. There are even some people who argue that “nothing can be done”.
This is, of course, a lie. Something can indeed be done. We can fight and remove the elites from the equation entirely. In fact, we have no choice but to fight if we hope to retain any semblance of our sovereignty or foundational principles. But sadly, there are people in the movement with some influence who do not seem to understand the difference between fighting to survive, and fighting to succeed.
Let me break it down a little further...
The liberty movement is obsessed with the concept of “survival”. We see the globalist efforts leading to the ruin of the common man's future and we know that the threat is very real. So, we prepare; we prepare to survive, but not necessarily to prevail.
Survival in itself is meaningless. There are many ways to stay alive. A person could just as easily sell out to the globalists and help them, and that person would probably have better “odds” of survival than I will farming my homestead as a producer and living off my preps in defiance of them. If survival alone is your goal, then you are NOT a liberty activist and you have missed the bigger picture.
Even in the event that you can weather the storm of economic chaos or political civil war safely in an isolated retreat somewhere on a far off mountaintop, what kind of world will you be coming back to when you finally have to leave that idyllic castle? What kind of world will your children be coming back to? And their children...?
I'm certainly not dismissing the usefulness of survival culture. I'm a big proponent of it. But there are self proclaimed survival “gurus” out there that are misleading the movement into thinking that survival is the final goal. And to this end, they have criticized people for organizing or preparing to fight the establishment. They claim it can't be done. We'll be "wiped off the face of the Earth". The enemy is far too strong and what can a mere rifle do against a tank? But if survivalism requires running away and hiding like a coward from a known evil or refusing to take action for the sake of future generations, then I don't want to be a survivalist...
Freedom cannot be boiled down to a dream or a wish; something that might happen someday if we are able to stay alive long enough. Freedom is a responsibility that is already born into most human beings. It's not a cheesy or childish ideal, it's a timeless ideal. Freedom and the fight for peace and balance in the face of would-be emperors is an infinite battle. It never ends. The fight IS freedom. Without the fight, freedom disappears.
For each person that defies collectivists and totalitarians, even at the risk of their own life, the shadow is held back another day. This is what matters, and this is what the survival purists don't get. You have to make yourself WORTHY of surviving, by standing for principles and values that are bigger than you are. Otherwise you're not worth a damn to anyone, even yourself.
As for the notion of the impossible mountain; the lone rebel taking on a vast globalist army...this is not a delusional fantasy and these people are not alone. There are millions of us out there, getting ready and forming pockets of resistance. In the meantime we fight the information war, because the globalist's most powerful weapon is not a tank or even a nuclear bomb, it's propaganda. The ability to turn a population in on itself and cause it to self destruct is far more dangerous than any technological advancement or military marvel.
As a long time mixed martial artist, I have seen the biggest and most intimidating opponents toppled by clever strategy and willpower. There is no such thing as an unbeatable man, nor an unbeatable army. There is always a way to prevail.
Finally, when I consider the claim made by some people that beating the elites in a direct confrontation is a “pipe dream”, I have to ask a fundamental question: Why do these people assume we have a choice? I've witnessed some pretty desperate attempts at silver bullet solutions to globalism in my years in the movement, from presidential election campaigns to change a system that cannot be changed from within, to “revolutionary” cryptocurrencies that the banking elites happily invest in and co-opt.
People misplace their faith in corrupt politicians and the rigged political process, even though they should know better by now. In the final analysis, politics is designed to keep society in stasis, frozen with inaction or fighting in the name of a false leader. Always, when the dust settles the elites escape blame and scrutiny while the public picks up the pieces and tries to understand just what happened.
The current chaos surrounding Donald Trump is no different; it is only different in that Trump is a puppet whose job is to appeal directly to liberty activists. For once we're getting recognition, but it's not the good kind...
And while building alternatives to the mainstream system and removing yourself from the grid is a step in the right direction, this alone is only a stop-gap. One day, the establishment will come to take what you have. There is no way around this. Narcopaths are like ravenous parasites feeding on every last morsel of humanity. They take whatever can be taken.
The question is, when they come to digest that which you hold precious, how will you respond? Is fighting back impossible, or is it preferable to slavery? Is dying for a better tomorrow a fool's errand, or the only errand we are put on this Earth for? These are questions that need to be answered and answered soon. The time left to ponder them is running out.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Saturday, November 2, 2019
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Friday, October 25, 2019
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Friday, October 18, 2019
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Monday, October 14, 2019
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Here’s How The New U.S.-China Trade Talks May End
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group
With the U.S. and China in the midst of a new round
of high level trade talks, this Thursday marks 22 months since tariffs
were launched and the trade war began. Far from being “easy to win”,
the trade war has lasted far longer than most analysts in the
mainstream and alternative media predicted. In past articles, I have
warned that the trade war itself is probably not meant to be won at
all; rather, it is a massive distraction and a convenient scapegoat as global banks set the implosion of the Everything Bubble
in motion. I continue to stand by this assessment, which is why I think
it is unlikely that the current talks with China will accomplish much
of anything.
This conclusion runs in stark contrast to all the hype we heard in the investment community in September. The way stock markets levitated, one would have thought a deal was assured. Never underestimate the power of blind optimism, I suppose. I believe there are a very limited number of end games to the meeting, none of which will result in an actual “deal”. However, it’s important to understand the dynamics at play here.
First and foremost, if we are to approach the trade war from a mere surface examination, there is really no incentive for China to capitulate to Trump’s demands. There is only one year left until the 2020 elections, and while BOTH economies are certainly seeing a downward plunge, China is hardly crippled by tariffs on exports to the U.S. China can simply bide its time, waiting to see how the U.S. election unfolds. The more unstable the U.S. economy is in 2020, the less likely it will be that Trump will win a second term. Trump has tied himself so completely to the performance of the economy and stock markets that whatever happens, he now owns the end result.
The U.S. only accounts for 18% of total Chinese exports, which is not a small amount to be sure, but nowhere near enough leverage to push China into long-term concessions. China has already begun replacing U.S. agricultural products by turning to alternative markets in countries like Brazil and Mexico. The meme six months ago among trade war cheerleaders was that “the Chinese people would be starving within months without U.S. soy and pork”, and the Chinese government would “have a revolution on its hands.” I hope these people now see how ridiculous this assertion is. The U.S. is not the only game in town, there are plenty of other agricultural markets in the world.
China is the largest exporter/importer in the world and the largest manufacturing hub. With such infrastructure and a cheap labor force, the nation is much more economically durable than many analysts give them credit for. The issue of China’s debt creation is often brought up as evidence that their economy is on the verge of collapse. I would point out, though, that China’s debt bonanza was actually planned. In fact, China’s inclusion in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket in 2016 REQUIRED them to circulate vast amounts of debt instruments in order to increase the liquidity of their markets and their currency.
Beyond foreign trade, China has been increasing their reliance on domestic consumption over exports. Domestic consumption accounted for 78% of China’s GDP growth in 2018 and around 40% of total GDP. The loss of the U.S. consumer is not enough to undo China’s economy. Period.
China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries are still declining, and the nation has increased the pace of its gold purchases for the tenth straight month. This shows that the Chinese are hedging for a long haul conflict with the U.S.
It is important to note here that I’m not endorsing the way the Chinese government runs the economy or how they manage their society. They are, for all intents and purposes, collectivist monsters. The problem is that other collectivist monsters in the west have deemed China useful. As George Soros once publicly admitted, China is going to become the “economic motor” of the “new world order”, replacing the U.S. consumer. The fall of China is simply not in the cards as they see it.
So, here is the bottom line: Even when we set aside all the geopolitical obstacles to a trade deal, including such problems as the protests in Hong Kong or the breakdown of denuclearization talks with North Korea, there is nothing compelling China to make a deal in the near term, and this makes the trade talks this month rather predictable.
The idea that establishment figures within the Trump White House are completely unaware of these factors is a bit absurd. And so, along with the various advantages the trade war presents as a distraction for global banks, I can only conclude that the trade war is nothing more than Kabuki theater. The ongoing pattern of U.S.-China tariff announcements supports this theory, and this presents us with two possible outcomes.
The first likely outcome is that trade talks will very quickly fall apart. The U.S. recently added 28 Chinese firms to the “Entity List”, which restricts their ability to do business in the U.S. Rumors of potential restrictions on Chinese purchases of U.S. equities have also caused heightened tensions. China has also narrowed the parameters of what they are willing to discuss in terms of concessions only days before the meeting, indicating that serious talks will not be taking place.
This scenario will probably result in an immediate selloff in global stocks, though it’s possible that the investment community may buy in the short term under the assumption that, in order to quell market fears, the Federal Reserve will respond with more rate cuts or promises of Quantitative Easing. In the longer term (the next two months) under this outcome, I expect stocks to plummet and for gold to resume its upward trend established this summer. (Once China’s “Golden Week” ends and the nation returns to business, the rally will return; a lost trade deal will only accelerate matters further.)
A breakdown in talks would also spur on more tariffs, or cause both Trump and China to make pending tariffs official. Renewed talks will be suggested, but no dates will be confirmed, and this time the wait for another meeting will be much longer.
The second likely scenario is the sudden announcement by both sides of a “positive discussion” and a potential deal. This will be yet another head fake, and there will be no deal, but it will certainly add enthusiasm in the markets for a few weeks; at least, until people realize that the optimism was all a farce. This has been a common cycle in the trade dispute, with Chinese and U.S. officials injecting rumors of an inevitable deal, only to dash hopes around a month later with abrupt tariff increases and angry rhetoric.
In this case, look for equities to levitate for a short time. If the Fed holds rates steady as Powell has said the central bank would this month, then there will be a slower moving downtrend until the Brexit event is either decided or postponed at the end of October. Precious metals will still climb as the Chinese reenter the market and continue to buy.
The trade war is a boon for global banks, as it hides their culpability for the crash of the biggest financial bubble in modern history. There are only two ways it will end: After the ongoing crash hits peak pain and a Lehman moment ensues, or another even bigger distraction (such as a shooting war somewhere in the world) takes its place. What is less certain is how the public will react to this fiscal earthquake. Will the majority believe the mainstream narrative that it was the trade war that caused the crash instead of the central and international banks? Or, will they see through the ruse?
For those that already have their eyes open, I suggest ample preparation to protect your savings as well your ability to provide for your family’s security. The end of 2019 is about to get even more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)