Why The Globalists Need A War, And Soon
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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment