Thursday, December 28, 2017


Newsletter –

>>> The year 2017 has been another active year for people fighting on a wide range of fronts. The Trump administration has brought many issues that have existed for years out into the open where they are more difficult to deny – racism, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism and patriarchy and the crises they create. More people are activated and greater connections between the fronts of struggle are creating a movement of movements. These are positive developments, bright spots in difficult times. They are the seeds of transformative change that we can nurture and grow if we act with intention.
The crises we face have been building for decades. They are reaching a point of extremism that will create an even greater response by people. What that response is, where it goes and what it accomplishes are up to all of us to determine.

The overreach by the plutocrats in power may bring a boomerang effect, energizing the population to take action and demand the changes we desire and need. We may reach a moment, a turning point, when the movements for economic, racial and environmental justice, as well as peace, can win significant changes, beyond the comfort zones of those in power. The boomerang will only occur if we educate and organize for it, and its size will also depend on us.

We have no illusions that this work will be easy. Those in power will do all that they can to derail, misdirect and suppress our efforts. Our tasks are to resist their tactics and maintain our focus on our end goals. This requires understanding how social movements succeed and being clear in our demands for transformative change.

We see several key areas where people are energized to work for changes that are opportunities to expand the current movement of movements into a powerful force that will overcome the stranglehold by the corporate duopoly parties. This is the first of two articles to help prepare us for the work ahead. In the second article, we will describe these key issues in greater depth and what we need to do to create the transformative moment we need.

The Long Development of this Transformative Era

The era of transformation has been developing over many decades. If we view it through presidential administrations, a frame of reference used commonly in the United States, we see that both major parties represent the interests of the wealthy and corporations, not the majority of the population, and that they effectively divide and weaken popular movements.

After Bill Clinton’s administration loosened regulations on finance, setting the stage for the 2008 crash, brought in trade agreements like NAFTA and weakened the social safety net, and George W. Bush’s administration expanded military aggression around the world and the domestic security state, as well as further enriching the wealthy, people were hungry for change. Barack Obama effectively built his ‘hope and change’ campaign around this desire, vaguely but eloquently promising what people wanted. His words allowed people to imagine that a transformation was coming.

Obama raised expectations, but he did not fulfill them. His cabinet was made up of Wall Streeters from Citigroup. He continued and expanded foreign wars, the wealth divide grew and tens of millions went without healthcare even after his private insurance-based Affordable Care Act became law. The frustration that had been building during the Clinton-Bush years burst onto the scene with Occupy, Fight for $15, Black Lives Matter, debt resistance, immigration reform, Idle No More and other fronts of struggle.

After Occupy, the media told us the people’s struggle went away, but, as we show in the daily movement news reporting on Popular Resistance, all of those struggles expanded. The corporate media’s failure to cover the national mass protest movement does not change reality — the resistance movements continue, are growing and are impacting popular opinion and policies.

Where We Are and What We Must Do

In 2013, we wrote a two part series describing the status of the movement and what the movement must do. In the December 2013 article, Closer than We Think, we described the eight stages of social movements, an analysis by long-time civil rights and anti-nuclear activist, Bill Moyer. The movement had gone through the “Take-Off”, Stage Four of the social movement when encampments covered the country, seemingly overnight, and brought the issues of the wealth divide, racist policing, climate change, student debt and other issues to the forefront. The meme of the 99% against the 1% illustrated the conflict between people power and the power holders. We passed through Stage Five, “the Landing,” where the encampments disappeared and people asked, “What happened? Did we accomplish anything?”

Our second article in January 2014 focused on the tasks of the movement and explained that we were now in Stage Six, the final stage before victory. This is a long-term phase that could last years where the goal is to build broad national consensus of 70% to 90% support among the public for the goals of the movement and to mobilize people as effective change agents.

During this phase, the contradictions in the system become more obvious to people. For example, as the United States and world experience the harsh realities of climate change in massive storms, widespread fires, droughts and famine, the government’s response is inadequate. When Obama was president his administration was an anchor on the world, weakening international climate and trade agreements. His secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, used her influence to promote fracking. The Trump administration has gone further, denying climate change, erasing words and phrases that describe it from government reports, silencing scientists and undermining the inadequate steps made to confront climate change that were put in place in the Obama era.

The inadequate response to the climate crisis is one example of many multiple crisis situations that exist in which the government does not respond, responds inadequately or even takes actions that make these crises worse. In some cases, the power holders go too far, as we see in the recently passed tax bill, designed to protect the donor class, and in abusive police practices as the racism and violence of our society are exposed. The overreaction, in the end helps build the national consensus we need to achieve our objectives.

The contradictions arise because there are obvious solutions to each crisis we face, but those in power refuse to put them in place. National consensus for these solutions grows during this phase, and the failures of the money-dominated political system become more obvious.

As a result, a transformative moment is building now. It can be seen in the 2016 presidential campaigns where people showed frustration with both corporate parties. Electoral challenges inside the parties showed populist anger based on hundreds of millions of people struggling every day to survive in an unfair economy. Donald Trump built his campaign around economic insecurity from the right and Senator Bernie Sanders did the same from the left. Now, Trump is betraying conservative populists with economic and healthcare policies that add to their insecurity and with the wealthiest cabinet in US history, serving the interests of Wall Street, the self-interest of elected officials and adding to the distrust of the DC duopoly. The realization of Trump’s betrayal is only beginning to show itself in the lives of those who supported him.

The Democrats have been struggling to come to grips with how they lost to Donald Trump. A large part of the party is in denial, blaming their failures on the fiction of Russiagate — claiming the Russians were responsible for their loss rather than a widely-disliked candidate who represented Wall Street and war for her entire career. The Democrats continue their internal divide: the divide between Wall Street donors who want the party to serve their interests and voters who want the party to represent their interests. Invariably the Democrats will be unable to turn their backs on their donors and will nominate a fake change agent who will spout popular progressive rhetoric and dash those hopes when in office.

It is critical for us to step out of the limitations of two and four year election cycles and recognize that social transformation does not arise by electing the perceived least evil. Social transformation occurs through a people-powered movement of movements that arises over decades of struggle and shifts the political reality so that the power holders must respond.

Issues Driving the Backlash 

There will be a backlash. It will look to the Democrats like a backlash against Trump’s extremism, but it will be broader. It will be a backlash against the extremism of the corporate duopoly. Their bi-partisan policies always put the wealthy and big business interests first. The boomerang will be built on the conflict between the necessities of the people and the planet vs. the greed of the wealthy.

There are a number of fundamental issues that are priorities for large majorities of the population, around which people are mobilizing and where national consensus is developing. They have the potential to connect our movements into a powerful force.

One of our tasks is to develop clear demands so that we cannot be side-tracked by false or partial solutions. If these fundamental issues are addressed through bold and transformative solutions, they will shift the political culture and our political system in a significant way towards the people-powered future we need. They will create change at the root causes of the crises we face.

These transformative issues include economic inequality, lack of access to health care, ensuring Internet freedom and a people’s media, confronting climate change and environmental disasters, ending US Empire and militarism at home, and addressing domestic human rights abuses, whether it is exploitation of workers, mass incarceration, racism or disrespect for Indigenous sovereignty. Throughout all of these issues there is a thread of racial injustice so our struggles must not just solidify around class issues, but must also solidify around the necessity of ending systemic racism.

We will address these issues and next steps in greater depth in the first newsletter of the new year. We wish all of you a peaceful week and hope you are able to spend time with loved ones. We are committed to being with you through the struggle and to doing all we can to stop the machine and create a new world.

How are the Public Employees' Retirement Portfolios going to be fully exposed. The so called "Judicial System" is a PONZI (Racket), too. Judges are all compromised in that, the retirements are the "Dealers" (what they are called) also known as BIG BANKS. I am more than ready and willing and have a lot of people who are on the same page, to do this coming reconstructing our reality into sane. Thank you, I have enjoyed Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese for the obvious reasons for some time. Now I am unduly impressed..


Wednesday, December 27, 2017


Sunday, December 24, 2017


OVERCAST is a groundbreaking documentary directed by Matthias Hancke and produced by Tristan Albrecht about a phenomenon that most of us would consider normal: Jet contrails that spread into clouds, covering the sky and blocking the sun. For some people however, these trails are the biggest environmental crime in the history of mankind. 

Recent studies show that man-made cirrus clouds through flight traffic have a far bigger impact on climate change than previously assumed and are already described as unintentional Geoengineering.

At 1.02-1.07 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky focusses on Weather Warfare and Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD).

OVERCAST brings light into a phenomenon that should be part of the public and climate debate, but instead has been mostly ignored so far.   

The Swiss filmmaker Matthias Hancke worked on his first documentary OVERCAST for almost seven years. In 2007 he realized for the first time, that the man-made cloud cover was not a natural byproduct from aviation.
Therefore he started his investigation with the intention to finally get a conclusive answer for an ongoing geoengineering program.

Matthias conducted over 40 interviews in 10 different countries and spent 1,000’s of hours on research and investigation to find out more about aerosol spraying and why our public officials are not investigating it.

OVERCAST incorporated both sides of the controversy, the debunkers and established scientists as well as the activists. The film brilliantly shows how the debunkers debunk themselves with their limited argumentation and lack of scientific data.

The other two flights are building the red line of the film. After the film was almost completed, a very rare study from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology came out with some groundbreaking results; unregulated metals of aluminum and barium were found in the jet fuel, as described in many geoengineering patents (e.g. Welsbach, Huko).

OVERCAST is a movie that every activist should watch in order to get the best arguments. Show it to your skeptical and unaware friends to wake them up. It is a film that gives the whole issue and movement the credibility, which is needed in order to stop this crime.  OVERCAST has already been shown in over 12 film festivals worldwide.

Here is the link to view the online version of OVERCAST, watch or get your copy now:



Saturday, December 23, 2017


The Global Count-Down To Financial Devastation iN 2018 As Told By The Economist, And The Rationale Behind The New World Currency

The Global Count-Down To Financial Devastation In 2018 As Told By The Economist, And The Rationale Behind The New World Currency



1988 * 1998 * 2008 * 2018



 The Economist – January 9, 1988, Vol. 306, pp 9-10

THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.
But in spite of all the trouble governments have in reaching and (harder still) sticking to international agreements about macroeconomic policy, the conviction is growing that exchange rates cannot be lef to themselves. Remember that the Louvre accord and its predecessor, the Plaza agreement of September 1985, were emergency measures to deal with a crisis of currency instability. Between 1983 and 1985 the dollar rose by 34% against the currencies of America’s trading partners; since then it has fallen by 42%. Such changes have skewed the patern of international comparative advantage more drastically in four years than underlying economic forces might do in a whole generation.
In the past few days the world’s main central banks, fearing another dollar  collapse, have again jointly intervened in the currency markets. Market- loving ministers such as Britain’s Mr. Nigel Lawson have been converted to the cause of exchange-rate stability. Japanese ofcials take seriously he idea of EMS-like schemes for the main industrial economies. Regardless of the Louvre’s embarrassing failure, the conviction remains that something must be done about exchange rates.
Something will be, almost certainly in the course of 1988. And not long after the next currency agreement is signed it will go the same way as the last one. It will collapse. Governments are far from ready to subordinate their domestic objectives to the goal of international stability. Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stock market crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice. This points to a muddled sequence of emergency followed by a patch-up followed by emergency, stretching out far beyond 2018 – except for two things. As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very tends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.
The new world economy
The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.

The Economist -September 24, 1998

One world, one money

A global currency is not a new idea, but it may soon get a new lease of life

IN DIFFICULT times, people are allowed, even encouraged, to think the unthinkable. Some of the economists who propose capital controls as a remedy for recession in Asia claim to be doing this—but they are flattering themselves. Unthinkable? Malaysia just did it. Dozens of countries still use capital-account restrictions. And it is a cliché of the orthodox “sequencing” literature that a variety of such controls should be retained until other reforms are complete. Really, to think the unthinkable, you have to be bolder than this.
So here is an idea: global currency union. Let nobody call it boringly feasible, or politically expedient. Yet, like all the best unthinkable ideas, it has more going for it than you might think—in principle, at least. The idea is not new. Richard Cooper of Harvard University proposed a single world currency in Foreign Affairs in 1984, and he was not the first to think of it. It seemed an outlandish idea, and still does. But much has happened lately to make it worth a moment’s thought.
The usual way to ask whether countries would be better off sharing a single currency—that is, whether they constitute an “optimal currency area”—is to examine the following trade-off. On one side is the undoubted convenience of a single money as a lubricant for trade and cross-border investment. On the other is the loss of the exchange rate as a shock-absorber for times when one or more of the countries face pressures (an abrupt fall in demand for their exports, say, or a sudden rise in labour costs) that the others are spared—a so-called “asymmetric shock”.
In setting cost against benefit, again according to the standard view, the crucial factors are openness to trade and freedom of movement of factors of production. A small open economy has more to gain from the convenience provided by a single currency. On the other hand, if labour (especially) is reluctant to migrate, the need for the exchange-rate shock-absorber is all the greater. Weighing all this, most economists conclude that the 11 countries that are about to adopt the euro are not in fact an optimal currency area. The world as a whole is not even close.
So what has changed? The main thing is the current global emergency. This is so serious a crisis that it is likely to prove a paradigm-shifting event, though straws were in the wind already. The emerging-market disaster poses the question, How is the world to live with globally integrated finance? In addition, it casts doubt on what once seemed a good answer: that floating exchange rates are the best way to stabilise the world economy.

Shockingly unstable

According to the traditional model, a country with unduly high labour costs, and therefore a troublesome current-account deficit, could expect to see its currency depreciate; this would cut real wages, making imports dearer and exports cheaper, thus neatly restoring the economy to equilibrium. But in a world where international flows of capital overwhelm international flows of trade, this does not work. Floating exchange rates destabilise trade and investment by wrenching relative prices away from their fundamental values (that is, from the values that would put the corresponding exchange rates at purchasing-power parity). In the emerging-markets crisis that currently threatens the world economy, exchange-rate movements have not been absorbers of shocks but amplifiers and even creators of them.
Governments of small open economies have long known that it is not an option to “leave the exchange rate to the market”. Monetary policy must always keep at least one eye on the currency. But governments have also learnt, in a second big change, that intermediate exchange-rate regimes do not work either. That was the lesson of the European Monetary System debacle of 1992-93 (and, arguably, of the downfall of the pegged-but-adjustable regimes used in Asia until last year). Semi-fixed systems cannot withstand the assault of integrated capital markets: they are prone to self-fulfilling panics. In other words, they too are destabilising.
But what does that leave? Let’s see. Pure floating is no use. Semi-fixed is no use. So there are two possibilities. One is to turn back the clock on financial integration: then pure-floating or semi-fixed systems might once again be used successfully. That would be enormously costly, especially to the developing countries; and it would be very difficult, because integration is partly driven by technological progress, which is hard to reverse. Still, it is a fair bet that a lot of countries will follow Malaysia’s example and give it a try. Otherwise, it seems, the remaining course is to combine increasing integration with perfect fixity of exchange rates—meaning currency union.
The fashion for currency boards reflects some of this thinking. Exchange-rate flexibility is more trouble than it is worth, advocates say, so abandon it once and for all. Alas, currency boards suffer big drawbacks all of their own. Whereas a currency union has a central bank to act as lender of last resort, a country with a currency board does not. So these regimes are vulnerable to runs on banks. Currency boards are a poor test of the larger idea.
The all-or-nothing, float-or-merge analysis also provides the case in economic logic for the euro: strive for integration, it says, no holds barred. Unfortunately, EMU is a somewhat flawed test as well. It is a political project as much as an economic one, so it will not reveal everything about how well a currency union among independent nation states might work. But it will reveal a lot, and its symbolic importance will be immense. If it fails, not only will that cause enormous political harm to the European Union, but the pressure for global financial barriers will be greatly strengthened. If it succeeds, the case for a global currency union will seem much more interesting.
Fine, you say, but how would the world ever get from here to there? Hard to say, admittedly. Find the answer to that and the idea would be thinkable. 


Friday, December 22, 2017




Delusional, Inbred, Brain Dead, Deciders, Mistaken,

Universe decides, Past, Present, Future,

Tell a lie enough and--
liars are convinced the truth it is,

But for the internet, the Fools' Errand--
maybe could scam the people,

No more devolution Time's revolution evolves Earth--
embrace the present in PEACE ...

Thursday, December 21, 2017



Oil - War - Exterminate - Insane Totally--
species, human beings, almost all, doom, doomed,

Ignorance - Stupidity - Crazy - Poisoned - Harvested--
manufactured theories, co-conspiring, aimlessly wandering, forever hell?

Earth - Prison - Prisoners - Choice - Home--
toxic imaginations, spinning protoplasm whirlwinds, evildoers, THEM!

Beasts - Marking - Disposable Digits - Paper--
co-creating mirrors, psychopaths, hypnotized, mesmerized, compromised, blubbering,

Stocks - Money - Commodities - False Idolatry--
time appears, disappears, conditioning brain dead zombies,

WHAT - Reality - Worship - Minerals - Resources--
material plane, exploiting WE, nature mutually shared,

Do - WE - Truly - Know - HOW--
the Those, They, Who, Whom, enslave, annihilate,

Ravenous - Hungry Ghosts - Insatiable anti-matter--
slithering in dress-ups, sold as respectable, rich,

Wealthy - Powerful - Well-To-Do - Globalists - Leaders--
Murderers, Planet Human Masses wiped-out, good riddance,

Prepare - Embrace - Whole is NOT--
Separate, Energy equals Energy, Balance Embracing Evil,

LIVE - Decides - Deciders - Eternal Clock--
Not Broken, a RECKONING Spiraling Dragon Snake

IE, China & Russia, ET AL


Wednesday, December 20, 2017


There is no such reality in the United States of America as not mass murdering our own species.

Please, when has the USA been a sane nation as a reflection of peace?!


Looking glass spilled the milk--
inside-out and outside-in, no-body,

Can answer the bell, home--
ringing loudly awaken dead person sleeping soundly,

When the nighttime falls, and--
morning light calls out Mirror-Mirror, reflecting,

Society, establishment, no exit, hell--
protoplasmic evil zombies into walls, halls, pits,

Waltzing with the programming, infected--
chemistry miracle blood and brain, mind, spirit,

In one year or less--
cannot endure much more of the abyss,

Healing is a choice, difficult--
wallowing in self-pity, rage, wounded decimated souls,

Nothing new an earth journey--
timeless time sacred way, always, all ways,

Quiet inner-outer same-same mirror-mirror reality--
like a mare follows its mate naturally,

Planet-Planet, heavens where is the--
universe spinning eternity in my hand's palm?

Do we think with the heart and feel with the head!?  What does this say ... perhaps every human being that has consciousness needs to reflect on purchasing enough provisions for about three (3) TO six (6) months, perhaps one year or two AND THEN DO NOTHING except grow a garden and indeed do not consume - do not be addicted to technology, in sum:  BE STILL and watch the world spin in the direction which is subtle rather than consuming as dense, gross, coarse barbarians.

Roberta Kelly, December 2017

 "... Reagan National Security Strategy was 41 pages, Bush 2002 was 31, Obama 2015 was 29. Trump's is 55 pages: Buffet of priorities without much prioritization" ..  credit to >>

Sunday, December 10, 2017


 Why The Globalists Need A War, And Soon
 Admin December 8, 2017,  By Brandon Smith – Alt-Marke 
It is difficult to gauge and understand geopolitical and economic events without first comprehending the fact that much of what happens in the world is engineered to happen and with a specific encompassing goal in mind. If you subscribe to the theory that all is random “chaos” and outcomes are circumstantial or coincidental, then you will be lost in the dark on most things. If you think a globalist “conspiracy” would require “too much control” or foresight, I would point out that organized conspiracy by people in power is a matter of history, not of theory. If such cabals were prevalent in the past, it is rather foolish to dismiss the reality that they are prevalent today.

In my articles “The Economic End Game Explained” and “The Economic End Game Continues,” I outline considerable evidence supporting the following conclusion: International financiers and political puppets in Western AND Eastern countries share a deep rooted ideology called “globalism” or the “new world order.” This ideology demands total centralization of economy and government resulting in a single global fiscal authority, a single global monetary system and a one world ruling structure. Obviously, such a pursuit would take extensive time and planning. It is a long-term project, with moments of accelerated change.

The globalists refer to the process of their intended change as the “global economic reset.” A reset of the world’s economic processes is not so far fetched as skeptics like to argue. When an organized group of ideologues maintains control over the currency production and interest rates of most nations on the planet, it would hardly be difficult to manipulate politicians, manipulate legislation or even scientifically conjure financial bubbles and collapses. By extension, it would also be simple to trigger international conflicts if needed.

But why would war be a necessary ingredient to globalization?

War is the ultimate distraction, the ultimate divider and, perhaps ironically, the ultimate consolidator. In the past century, war always seems to follow or coincide with economic crisis events that are later exposed as products of the banking elites and their aggressive monetary policies. And, in the aftermath of these wars, supranational institutions are often founded (like the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund) as “solutions” to preventing mass tragedies from ever happening again. War is a social steroid promoting mutation, usually in an unhealthy way.

In recent years the concept of “world war” has given way to a more insidious trend of constant and sporadic regional wars. In most cases these regional wars have helped to contribute to the steady downfall of the U.S. through accumulating national debts as well as international distrust or hatred. In fact, one might conclude that if we were to look at the macro-picture of the vast array of regional wars being perpetrated by the globalists we would see that all of them combined are amounting to a kind of world war in a different form.

That said, the globalists will need a new and far larger catalyst for their reset, and soon. Why?  Because a sizable distraction is essential to the next phase of the ongoing collapse. A pervasive scapegoat is needed; one that can be blamed for almost any negative scenario. This draws public attention away from the globalists themselves as the culprits behind fiscal crisis, maybe so much so that it will take decades before the mainstream ever questions what actually happened, if they ever question anything at all.

The fear generated through an uncertain war also acts as a form of psychological alchemy, transmuting the collective public mind-set to accept centralization they never would have accepted otherwise.

Here is the issue at hand — central banks are seeking a monetary reset more than anything else. A monetary reset demands massive debt, followed by massive stimulus, followed by fiscal tightening, then massive inflation, followed by currency implosion that opens the door to a replacement structure (most likely in the form of blockchain technology and crypto-currency). The credit crisis of 2008 conveniently provided at least two of these elements so far, vast debt and stimulus measures. Today, we are beginning to witness the fiscal tightening phase of this process.

As I have been warning since before the Fed taper of QE, the central bank trend will lead to a removal of stimulus support, facilitating a crushing blow to bonds and equities markets. Now, interestingly enough, the Bank for International Settlements is warning of the same thing as 2017 comes to a close. It should be noted that this is not the first time the BIS warned of an impending crash; they also predicted with keen timing the derivatives and credit crash back in 2007. This was, of course, too little too late for the masses to react in any positive way, though.
Their latest warning arrives on the heels of the December Federal Reserve meeting at which it is widely expected that the central bank will raise interest rates yet again while taking the next step towards reducing their balance sheet. Many mainstream and alternative economists doubted the taper of QE and doubted the hiking of interest rates. They were wrong. Just as the doubts over the Fed balance sheet reductions are wrong. The pullback in these measures will invariably strike bonds and equities in a negative way. Time is running out.

But, the banking elites have taken steps. For example, they have in place a perfect distraction in the form of the Trump Administration. With Trump loudly and proudly taking credit for the stock market bull run over the course of the past year, who do you think the public will blame when those same markets go south as the central bank pulls the rug out? Probably not the Fed or the establishment banks.

Trump has also in an odd way created the perfect rationale for the Fed as they increase interest rates and end the cheap money that has been feeding stocks for so long. With the passage of Trump’s tax “reform” plan, the fed can now argue that interest rates MUST be raised in order to create incentives for treasury investment and to pay for Trump’s intended public works programs and military expansion goals. Meaning, the fed can claim it is not culpable for any negative effects from removing cheap capital from the table because Trump’s actions demanded it.

I would also point out that in most cases in history the Fed has lowered interest rates immediately following tax cuts and reforms. They did this after Reagan’s tax reforms in 1981 and in 1986, as well as after George W. Bush’s tax reforms in 2001. Juxtapose that with 2018, as the Fed intends to continue RAISING interest rates in the wake of Trump’s tax reforms. Meaning, they are taking the opposite action from what they have often done in the past.  Something to think about…

Trump’s tax plan itself is primarily a distraction from the real problem. First, when comparing tax brackets from this past year to the intended tax brackets for next year under the Trump reforms, there is almost no change whatsoever for the average American. The only major reductions in taxes are, no surprise, in the form of corporate tax cuts; reducing the corporate tax ceiling from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. This is trickle-down economics at best, and not a solution to a single problem facing the public and the country in terms of the flailing economy.
Second, why are we talking about income tax “reform” when we should be talking about abolishing the income tax and the Federal Reserve altogether? Whatever happened to that dialogue? It has disappeared down the memory hole.

Trump’s tax plan will do nothing to slow or undo the current economic crisis because the crisis stems directly from central banking monetary policies and interest rate manipulations.  Tax reform is far too little far too late, and stands as nothing more than meager bone thrown to conservatives to keep them quiet for a while.  This is what Trump’s tax reform does do very well, though — it rallies conservatives around Trump, regardless of whether it actually helps them or not. Much like Obama’s universal health care bill, which has proven to be a continued disaster in practice, but was rather successful at the time of its passage in rallying the liberal base. Trump is certainly going to need a base of public support if he is going to initiate a major war campaign.

North Korea continues to be the most likely powder keg for the next distraction event.  Two months of quiet led people with short attention spans to dismiss the notion, and perhaps some of them will double down and continue their denials, but it is growing more difficult to ignore by the day.  I would argue that North Korea is the most viable option simply because almost no one expects a war with the isolated nation to happen. The level of complacency despite all the signals to the contrary is palpable.

The U.S. has staged three aircraft carrier groups in the region for the first time in a decade. Major combat exercises are underway, designated Vigilant Ace 18, specifically designed to simulate an invasion of North Korea with over 230 aircraft and 12,000 American troops participating. North Korea has warned of “nuclear war” as a consequence.

North Korea may have the ability to follow through, at least on a limited scale, as they have recently test launched what appears to be a huge leap in missile technology — an ICBM capable of carrying multiple warheads and striking the eastern seaboard of the U.S.  How the North Koreans came to possess this technology so quickly is a question everyone should be asking.

In response, the war rhetoric has been amplified. White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has stated that North Korea is the greatest immediate threat to the U.S., saying that the potential for war “is increasing every day.” Warmonger and enemy of the Constitution, Lindsey Graham, has stated that the families of U.S. military personnel should be moved out of South Korea for their own safety, and that “We’re getting close to military conflict.

Monday, November 27, 2017


While the people of planet earth ("humans") busy themselves in the nonsense of money, accumulation of material wealth, changing the physical form via plastic surgery and, yes, died in the wool belief systems of pure superstition ....

Those THAT own "nature" (LOL) are very busy readying the future reality to be exactly WHAT IT IS ...

no need for food, no need for higher nor lower education, no need for anything BUT, programmed control of whatever THE THEM decide as life in THEIR universe.

Ready or not, the world has changed and the earthlings are definitely not paying attention. 

We bring robots to life.