Send us your Sentinel Alert to Submit Sentinel Alert:
01.23.17 – How To Predict The Behavior Of Globalists
- In my last article, ‘How Globalists Predict Your Behavior’, I outlined the primary method globalists use to measure public consent, or, public dissent. The use of macro-analytics and the hyper-monitoring of web traffic is a powerful tool at the disposal of the establishment for gauging shifts in public consciousness in real time.
- For example, in early 2016 the elites were entirely aware of the rise of conservative and sovereignty movements in the U.S. and Europe. In fact, the dangers of growing “populism” were all that elitists and their publications talked about for the first six months of the year. At first, this notion seemed a little odd to me. Generally, when globalists are attempting to manage public opinion, they are careful not to reveal the slightest hint that conservative movements exist beyond an “extremist fringe”. They certainly never suggest that there is a massive undercurrent of nationalism ready to topple the globalist structure.
- In fact, whenever such movements do arise the establishment is swift to obstruct them or co-opt them. I witnessed this first hand during the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and 2012 – the mainstream deliberately refused to acknowledge Ron Paul’s existence, because attacking him repeatedly would have been a zero sum strategy that would have given him greater public attention and free publicity.
- I saw it during the Neo-con co-option of the Tea Party, a movement that I was involved in long before Fox News latched onto it and long before mainstream RINO Republicans not only jumped on the bandwagon but hijacked the horse. In a matter of months the Tea Party became a defunct entity, a shell of its former self. Luckily, most liberty activists simply left it behind and started their own separate groups and projects rather than being absorbed into the Neo-con fold.
- I also saw establishment interference on a local and state level during elections in Montana. An associate of mine was running for state office on a liberty platform and was doing rather well in the polls. He was approached by a contingent of political elites running as Republicans who told him in no uncertain terms that he could run on any platform and use any rhetoric he wanted, but if he won, he would be required to follow THEIR direction. They even encouraged him to continue arguing for constitutional government in his speeches and debates, because they felt this was the best way to “sell” his candidacy. But when all was said and done, he was supposed to stab his constituency in the back and take orders from the party leadership.
- The point is, the elites dominate the political system. Nothing happens within it without their say. So, for those same elites to suddenly and openly suggest that “populist movements” were threatening to overtake the world and destroy the global economy was suspicious, to say the least.
- In order to predict the behavior of globalists and the outcome of future economic and political events, it is important to understand certain dynamics. As just described, the establishment has a stranglehold on the political system. Party politics are a sham built around the false left/right paradigm. However, certain new dynamics are developing, and you must be able to track them.
- The best way to do this is to watch what globalists say within their own publications. They often reveal their intentions directly or indirectly. In many cases I think in their arrogance they assume that the masses are too stupid to read these publications and grasp what is being said.
- The most important element of predicting globalist actions is to know what they ultimately want; to know their ultimate goals. If you know the specifics of what any group or individual desperately wants, those people become highly predictable, because there are only so many useful paths to get to any goal.
- I have used this method to great effect over the years, so I am not merely presenting a theory, I have concrete successes to back my position.
- For example, just in the past couple of years I correctly predicted the Federal Reserve taper of QE, I predicted the inclusion of China in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights years in advance, I predicted the exact timing of the first Fed rate hike, I predicted the success of the Brexit referendum when most of the world and the liberty movement said it was never going to happen, I predicted that the Saudi 9/11 bill would pass, that Barack Obama would veto it and that congress would override his veto, I predicted that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate and that Donald Trump would be the Republican candidate for president of the U.S. and, I predicted that Donald Trump would win the 2016 election.
- Except for the China SDR inclusion, I predicted all of these events many months in advance and received a heavy amount of criticism each time from people in the mainstream and even from people in the liberty movement. Hilariously, as soon as these predictions proved true, some of the same people that were fervently opposed came quickly out of the woodwork to claim they “saw it coming all along”. I suppose this is human nature, but it is a problem because it keeps people from learning how to better gauge globalist behavior and come to correct conclusions.
- My goal in this article is to make EVERY liberty activist adept at predicting globalist driven events. So, here is a good place to start:
- Learn To Play Chess
- The elites are obsessed with chess and chess symbolism. Many of their strategies develop much like a game of chess develops. If you don’t know how to play chess, I suggest you learn. You don’t have to master the game, but you do need to understand the basic concepts of winning the game.
- For example, if you know the target that your opponent is really pursuing, you can easily obstruct his efforts because all his movements will become predictable. If his goal is to take your Queen, and you know this, then he should never be able to take your queen. This is why the elites go to great lengths to distract their opponents (meaning us) from their true target. They want you to think they are going straight for your King, or your Knight; they want you focused elsewhere. They will use feints often.
- Another core strategy of chess is the “forced sacrifice”. That is to say, the best chess players are very good at positioning one of their pieces so that it threatens two or more of your pieces. This forces you to sacrifice one piece for the sake of the others. If they do this often enough, before you know it you have sacrificed your way into defeat. The globalists ALWAYS have a primary target and a secondary target. There is always more than one move developing at any given time.
- Knowing chess is key to knowing how the globalists think.
- Get In Touch With Your Darker Side
- Going by their behavior and their rhetoric when they are unguarded, most globalists display highly narcissistic character traits as well as sociopathy and psychopathy. It is not enough to research these traits in a clinical fashion, you have to tap into the darker side of your own psyche, and think as they think. This means being willing to entertain evil and malicious concepts. You must be willing to ask yourself – “If I were them, how would I go about getting what I want?”
- Understanding devious and aberrant psychopathic intent goes a long way in making the globalists predictable. Remember, many psychopaths are actually highly intelligent and intuitive. They don’t have a moral compass and have lost the voice of conscience, but in order to adapt they have learned how to fake it. They are chameleons.
- ALL people are inherently capable of evil actions, just as they are inherently capable of great good. You don’t have to become like the elites, but you do have to go to some ugly places in your own mind. An elitist is basically a person who went to those places and discovered that he liked it there.
- Read Globalist Publications
- As noted above, the globalists have their own media outlets in which they publish their “views”, such as Foreign Policy Magazine, The Economist, Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. Sometimes these views are honest and sometimes they are calculated propaganda. Again, if you know exactly what the elitist targets are, then you can better discern if what they are saying is legitimate or a feint to distract you.
- I predicted the success of the Brexit and the Trump win based on the knowledge that:
- 1) The globalists need a large scale crisis in order to drastically change public perceptions on society and governance. That is to say, they need to create a crisis so terrifying that people will be willing to accept a fully centralized global economic system and global governance as a solution.
- 2) The globalists have already set in motion an economic crisis that cannot be reversed. It is a crisis that they must avoid blame for at all costs once it accelerates.
- 3) Conservative and sovereignty principles are the primary threat to the dominance of globalism. As long as ideas of individualism, national sovereignty and decentralization exist, globalism can never truly prevail. Therefore, obstructing movements based on these principles is not enough. The globalists must also destroy any positive perceptions of our principles for generations to come.
- 4) As stated in the section on chess, the globalists like to use the strategy of forced sacrifice, in which they threaten two targets simultaneously, or kill two birds with one stone. I realized at the beginning of 2016 that all the rhetoric by globalists in their own publications on the “rise of populism” was staging the groundwork for the success of the Brexit and the success of Trump. What better strategy for the establishment than to allow conservative movements to take the helm of the political and economic ship just as that ship is about to sink? In this way, the globalists can have the crisis they need, while at the same time scapegoating conservatives and avoiding blame, and, destroying the image of conservative ideals, perhaps forever.
- Have No Sacred Cows
- This is a hard one for many people. We all have certain biases and these biases can blind us to reality. The overreaching bias within the liberty movement is a desire for heroic leadership. We have grown up on stories of heroes from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson – grand statesmen and military giants that crushed tyranny. The problem is, while men like Washington and Jefferson were indeed instrumental, they were nothing without the hundreds of thousands of unsung patriots working tirelessly for freedom on their own.
- The founding fathers were not considered the founding fathers until long after the American Revolution was over. At the time, they were not thought of necessarily as heroes or even great leaders. They were just men, like many other men, gambling life and liberty on a cause that was uncertain at best.
- Activists need to STOP looking around for mighty leaders and start taking leadership themselves in their own way. If we do end up with another Washington or Jefferson or Paine or Madison, etc., we will not know who they are until the fight is over and the history books are written.
- The globalists take full advantage of the movement’s weakness in seeking out and artificially elevating heroes. Also, when people have this bias, they end up with blinders when examining such heroes with any skepticism. Obviously I am referring to Donald Trump, here.
- Sacred cows prevent accurate predictions of major events because a person will refuse to consider them as a potential negative factor.
- Moving Beyond Predictions
- It is one thing to be able to predict the outcome of social and political events; it is another matter to do something about them. In my next article I will outline solutions liberty activists can pursue on their own and in groups to counter globalist activity. Predicting their tactics is essential, but acting to disrupt those tactics should be the ultimate goal.
- The globalists believe that even if some of us do manage to decipher their activities and methods, we will have no means to do anything about them. They see themselves as the “history makers”, as the men who act. They see us as the “history watchers”, or the meaningless masses wafting about with geopolitical tides, helpless and incapable of determining our own destinies. I believe we will become history makers in due course. One weakness of the globalists that will sabotage them is their own hubris. They see people as pawns – but what happens when a piece walks off the chess board completely and acts in an unpredictable way? It is this potential alone that will destroy the globalists in the end.
01.22.17 – How The New York Times Plays With History
- Whenever The New York Times or some other mainstream news outlet holds itself out as a paragon of professional journalism – by wagging a finger at some pro-Trump “fake news” or some Internet “conspiracy theory” – I cringe at the self-delusion and hypocrisy.
- No one hates fake news and fact-free conspiracy theories more than I do, but the sad truth is that the mainstream press has opened the door to such fantasies by losing the confidence of the American people and becoming little more than the mouthpiece for the Establishment, which spins its own self-serving narratives and tells its own lies.
- Rather than acting as a watchdog against these deceptions, the Times and its mainstream fellow-travelers have transformed themselves into little more than the Establishment’s apologists and propagandists.
- If Iraq is the “enemy,” we are told wild tales about how Iraq’s non-existent WMD is a danger to us all. If Syria is in Washington’s crosshairs, we are given a one-sided account of what’s happening there, black hats for the “regime” and white hats for the “rebels”?
- If the State Department is backing a coup in Ukraine to oust an elected leader, we are regaled with tales of his corruption and how overthrowing a democratically chosen leader is somehow “democracy promotion.” Currently, we are getting uncritical stenography on every conceivable charge that the U.S. government lodges against Russia.
- Yet, while this crisis in American journalism has grown more severe in recent years, the pattern is not entirely new. It is reflected in how the mainstream media has missed many of the most significant news stories of modern history and has, more often than not, been an obstacle to getting at the truth.
- Then, if the evidence finally becomes so overwhelming that continued denials are no longer tenable, the mainstream media tries to reclaim its tattered credibility by seizing on some new tidbit of evidence and declaring that all that went before were just rumors but now we can take the long whispered story seriously — because the Times says so.
- For instance, we have the case of Richard Nixon’s sabotage of President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War peace talks in 1968 to give himself a crucial boost in a tight presidential race against Vice President Hubert Humphrey. In “real time” – both as Nixon was executing his maneuver and in the years immediately afterwards – there was reporting by second-tier newspapers and independent journalists into what Johnson privately called Nixon’s “treason,” but the Times and other “newspapers of record” treated the story as little more than a conspiracy theory.
- As the years went on and the case of Nixon’s guilt grew stronger and stronger, the story still never managed to cross the threshold for the Big Media to take it seriously.
- Definitive Evidence
- Several years ago, I compiled a detailed narrative of the 1968 events from material declassified by Johnson’s presidential library and I published the material at Consortiumnews.com. Not only did I draw from newly available recordings of Johnson’s phone calls but from a file of top secret wiretaps – labeled “The ‘X’ envelope” – which Johnson had ordered his national security adviser, Walt Rostow, to remove from the White House before Nixon’s inauguration.
- Walt Rostow’s “‘X’ Envelope”
- I also traced how Nixon’s paranoia about the missing White House file and who might possess it led him to assemble a team of burglars, known as the Plumbers, whose activities later surfaced in the Watergate scandal.
- In other words, by unraveling the mystery of Nixon’s 1968 “treason,” you change the narratives of the Vietnam War and Watergate, two of the pivotal issues of modern American history. But the mainstream U.S. media studiously ignored these new disclosures.
- Just last November, in a review of past “October Surprise” cases – in the context of FBI Director James Comey telling Congress that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails – the Times offered this summary of the 1968 affair:
“President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced a halt to bombing of North Vietnam, based on his claim that peace talks had ‘entered a new and a very much more hopeful phase,’ and he invited the government of South Vietnam and the Viet Cong to take part in negotiations. Raising hopes that the war might end soon, the announcement appeared to bolster the standing in the polls of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, the Democratic presidential nominee, but Humphrey still fell short in the election against former Vice President Richard M. Nixon, the Republican.”
- In other words, the Times treated Johnson’s bombing halt and claim of peace-talk progress as the “October Surprise” to try to influence the election in favor of Humphrey. But the evidence now is clear that a peace agreement was within reach and that the “October Surprise” was Nixon’s sabotage of the negotiations by persuading South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu to boycott the Paris talks.
- The Times got the story upside-down by failing to reexamine the case in light of convincing new evidence that had been available for years, albeit circulating outside the mainstream.
- However, finally, that disdain for the story may be dissipating. Earlier this month, the Times highlighted in an op-ed and a follow-up news article cryptic notes from Nixon’s 1968 campaign revealing Nixon’s instructions to top aide H.R. Haldeman.
- Haldeman’s notes – discovered at the Nixon presidential library by historian John A. Farrell – reveal Nixon telling Haldeman “Keep Anna Chennault working on SVN,” meaning South Viet Nam and referring to the campaign’s chief emissary to the South Vietnamese government, right-wing Chinese émigré Anna Chennault.
- Nixon’s gambit was to have Chennault pass on word to South Vietnamese President Thieu that if he boycotted Johnson’s Paris peace talks – thus derailing the negotiations – Nixon would assure Thieu continued U.S. military support for the war.
- Monkey Wrench It
- Another Haldeman note revealed Nixon’s intent to get Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Illinois, to berate Johnson about a planned bombing halt while Nixon looked for “Any other way to monkey wrench it? Anything RN [Richard Nixon] can do.”
- President Lyndon Johnson accompanies President-elect Richard Nixon to his inauguration on Jan. 20, 1969
- Though Haldeman’s scribbling is sometimes hard to decipher, the next entry makes reference to “SVN” and adds: “tell him hold firm” – the same message that Anna Chennault later passed on to senior South Vietnamese officials in the last days of the 1968 campaign.
- Though Farrell’s discovery is certainly newsworthy, its greatest significance may be that it has served as a tipping point that finally has forced the Times and the mainstream media to move past their longstanding dismissals of this “conspiracy theory.”
- The Times gave Farrell space on its op-ed page of Jan. 1 to explain his discovery and the Times followed up with an inside-the-paper story about the Haldeman notes. That story included some favorable comments from mainstream writers, such as former Newsweek bureau chief Evan Thomas saying Farrell “nailed down what has been talked about for a long time.”
- Of course, the story of Nixon’s Vietnam peace-talk sabotage has been more than “talked about for a long time.” A series of journalists have pieced together the evidence, including some as the scheme was unfolding and others from digging through yellowed government files as they became available over the past couple of decades.
- But the major newspapers mostly brushed aside this accumulation of evidence apparently because it challenged their “authoritative” narrative of that era. As strange and vicious as some of Nixon’s paranoid behavior may have been, it seems to have been a bridge too far to suggest that he put his political ambitions ahead of the safety of a half million U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam war zone in 1968.
- For the American people to have been told that troubling truth might have profoundly shaken their trust in the Establishment, given the deaths of 58,000 U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War, plus the killing of several million Vietnamese. (Nearly half of the dead were killed after Johnson’s peace talks failed and as Nixon lived up to his commitment to Thieu by extending the direct U.S. combat role for four more years.)
- [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “LBJ’s ‘X-File’ on Nixon’s ‘Treason’” and “The Heinous Crime Behind Watergate.”]
- A Reprise
- But the mainstream media’s concealment of Nixon’s “treason” was not a stand-alone problem in terms of distorting recent U.S. history. If the American people had realized how far some top U.S. officials would go to achieve their political ambitions, they might have been more willing to believe other serious allegations of government wrongdoing.
- President Ronald Reagan, delivering his Inaugural Address on Jan. 20, 1981, as the 52 U.S. hostages in Iran are simultaneously released
- For instance, the evidence is now almost as overwhelming that Ronald Reagan’s campaign reprised Nixon’s 1968 gambit in 1980 by undermining President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran, another well-documented “October Surprise” case that the mainstream media still labels a “conspiracy theory.”
- With more than two dozen witnesses – including U.S., Iranian, Israeli and other officials – describing aspects of that Republican behind-the-scenes deal, the reality of this “prequel” to Reagan’s later Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal should be widely accepted as a real piece of modern American history.
- But a half-hearted congressional investigation in 1991-93 naively gave then-President George H.W. Bush the crucial job of assembling internal U.S. government records to confirm the allegations – despite the fact that Bush was a principal suspect in the 1980 operation.
- Several years ago, I uncovered documents from the Bush presidential library in College Station, Texas, showing how Bush’s White House staff organized a cover-up to conceal key evidence and hide a key witness from the investigation.
- One memo by one of Bush’s lawyers disclosed that the White House had received confirmation of a key October Surprise allegation – a secret trip by campaign chairman (and later CIA Director) William Casey to Madrid – but then withheld that information from congressional investigators. Documents also showed the White House frustrating attempts to interview former CIA officer Donald Gregg, a key witness.
- Another document bluntly set out the White House’s goal: “kill/spike this story” to protect Bush’s reelection chances in 1992.
- After I discovered the Madrid confirmation several years ago – and sent the document to former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who had headed the congressional inquiry which had concluded that there was no credible evidence supporting the allegations – he was stunned by the apparent betrayal of his trust.
- “The [Bush-41] White House did not notify us that he [Casey] did make the trip” to Madrid, Hamilton told me in an interview. Asked if knowledge that Casey had traveled to Madrid might have changed the investigation’s dismissive October Surprise conclusion, Hamilton said yes, because the question of the Madrid trip was central to the inquiry.
- Yet, to this day, both right-wing and mainstream media outlets cite the investigation’s inconclusive results as their central argument for defending Reagan and his legacy. However, if Nixon’s 1968 gambit – jeopardizing the lives of a half million U.S. soldiers – had been accepted as genuine history earlier, the evidence that Reagan endangered 52 U.S. embassy personnel might have seemed a lot easier to believe.
- As these longstanding cover-ups slowly crack and begin to crumble, the serious history behind them has started to show through in the mainstream media. For instance, on Jan. 3, during a CNN panel discussion about interference in U.S. presidential elections, popular historian Doug Brinkley added, “One point: 1980, Ronald Reagan was taking on Jimmy Carter, and there was the October Surprise meeting keeping the hostages in Iran. William Casey, people in the Reagan administration were interfering with foreign policy then saying, ‘Keep the hostages in until after the election.’ So it has happened before. It’s not just Nixon here or Donald Trump.”
- [For more details on the 1980 case, see Robert Parry’s America’s Stolen Narrative or Trick or Treason: The 1980 October Surprise Mystery or Consortiumnews.com’s “Second Thoughts on October Surprise.”]
- Contra-Cocaine Scandal
- But the denial of serious Establishment wrongdoing dies hard. For instance, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major news outlets have long refused to accept the overwhelming evidence that Reagan’s beloved Nicaraguan Contra rebels engaged in cocaine trafficking under the benevolent gaze of the White House and the CIA.
- Then-Vice President George H.W. Bush with CIA Director William Casey at the White House on Feb. 11, 1981. (Photo credit: Reagan Library)
- My Associated Press colleague Brian Barger and I assembled a lot of that evidence in 1985 for the first story about this scandal, which undermined Reagan’s claims that he was fighting a relentless war on drugs. Back then, the Times also went to bat for the Establishment. Based on self-serving information from Reagan’s Justice Department, the Times knocked down our AP reporting. And, once the Times got taken in by its official sources, it and other mainstream publications carried on vendettas against anyone who dared contradict the accepted wisdom.
- So, when San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb revived the Contra-cocaine story in 1996 — with evidence that some of that cocaine had fed into the “crack epidemic” — the Times and other big newspapers savaged Webb’s articles and destroyed his career. Not even an institutional confession by the CIA in 1998 that it had been aware of widespread Contra drug smuggling and looked the other way was enough to shake the mainstream media’s false conventional wisdom about the Contras’ and the CIA’s innocence.
- After the CIA inspector general reached his damning conclusions admitting knowledge of the drug-running, the Times did run a story acknowledging that there may have been more to the allegations than the newspaper had previously believed, but the same article kept up the bashing of Webb, who was drummed out of journalism and, nearly penniless, committed suicide in 2004.
- Despite the CIA admissions, The Washington Post also continued to deny the Contra-cocaine reality. When a movie about Webb’s ordeal, “Kill the Messenger,” was released in 2014, the Post’s investigative editor Jeff Leen kept up the paper’s long-running denial of the reality with a nasty new attack on Webb.
- Leen’s story was endorsed by the Post’s former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr., who circulated Leen’s take-down of Webb with the added comment: “I was at The Washington Post at the time that it investigated Gary Webb’s stories, and Jeff Leen is exactly right. However, he is too kind to a movie that presents a lie as fact.”
- [For more on Leen’s hit piece, see Consortiumnews.com’s “WPost’s Slimy Assault on Gary Webb.” For more on the Contra-cocaine story, see “The Sordid Contra-Cocaine Saga.”]
- Lies as Truth
- The fact that mainstream media “stars” lie in calling facts a lie – or they can’t distinguish between facts and lies – has contributed to a dangerous breakdown in the public’s ability to sort out what is and what is not real.
- Essentially, the problem is that the mainstream media has sought to protect the integrity of the Establishment by dismissing real cases of institutional criminality and abuse of power. However, by shoring up these defenses – rather than challenging systemic wrongdoing – the mainstream media has watched its own credibility erode.
- One might hope that someone in a position of power within the major news organizations would recognize this danger and initiate a sweeping reform, which might start by acknowledging some of the long-buried historical realities even if it puts Establishment icons, such as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, in a negative light.
- But that is clearly not the direction that the mainstream U.S. news media is heading. Instead, the Times, the Post and other mainstream outlets continue to take whatever Establishment sources hand out – now including dubious and bizarre U.S. intelligence allegations about Russia and President-elect Donald Trump.
- Rather than join in demanding real evidence to support these claims, the mainstream media seems intent on simply channeling the Establishment’s contempt for both Russia and Trump. So, whatever is said – no matter how unlikely – merits front-page headlines.
- The end result, however, is to push more and more Americans into a state of confusion regarding what to believe. While some citizens may seek out honest independent journalism to get what they’re missing, others will surely fall prey to fake news and conspiracy theories.
- Following yesterday’s openly confrontational, deliberately protectionist presidential address, which in various circles has been dubbed the “American carnage” speech, some of Obama’s closest foreign friends are scrambling to find a role in a world that has drastically changed in less than 24 hours. One of them is the foreign leader whom Obama spoke to last before vacating the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who vowed on Saturday to seek compromises on issues like trade and military spending with U.S. President Donald Trump, adding she would work on preserving the important relationship between Europe and the United States.
- He made his convictions clear in his inauguration speech,” Merkel said in remarks broadcast live, a day after Trump vowed to put ‘America first’.
- Speaking at a news conference in the south-western town of Schoental, Merkel – finding herself in a world where many of her legacy friends have been swept away by the tide of “populist anger” – suddenly struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump than Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who on Friday said Germany should prepare for a rough ride under the new U.S. president.
- “I say two things with regards to this (speech): first, I believe firmly that it is best for all of us if we work together based on rules, common values and joint action in the international economic system, in the international trade system, and make our contributions to the military alliances,” Merkel said. The conservative German leader, who is seeking a fourth term and enjoyed a close relationship with former president Barack Obama, is seen by liberals across the Atlantic as a voice of reason that counterbalances rising populist parties in Europe.
- “And second, the trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years. And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect,” added Merkel.
- As Reuters notes, relations with the United States, Germany’s biggest trading partner, are likely to be a hot topic in electioneering in coming months leading to a general election in September. And in the aftermath of the Trump speech, which defined Trump’s “negotiating baseline”, Merkel will have no choice but admit weakness in accepting compromises with a man who has criticized her decision in 2015 to throw open Germany’s borders to asylum seekers fleeing wars and conflicts, and has said he believes other countries will leave the EU after Britain and that the NATO military alliance was obsolete.
- * * *
- Yet while Merkel hopes for a fresh start with the new US president, her domestic institutions and media will be far less forgiving to any indication of weakness from the chancellor. For the best example so far, an article penned this morning by Gabor Steingart, chief in chief of Handelsblatt, Germany’s leading economic newspaper, burned all compromise bridges when he said that “that was no presidential speech; that was a veritable declaration of war.“
- The savage criticism continued:”Threatening in tone. Cold and calculating in logic. Change minus the hope. Donald Trump used the traditional Inauguration Day address to settle a score with the U.S. political establishment going back decades. With four ex-presidents sitting a few feet behind him, the 45th president delivered a populist manifesto.”
- He notes than any attempts at compromise will fail because “the new president loves a good fight, not consensus. He doesn’t want to hug, but to smother, to overwhelm” and add that “in domestic policy, the Trump agenda sounds like a blueprint for civil war; in foreign policy, it sounds like the dawn of a new ice age.“
- Hardly an amicable setting for Merkel to be demand compromises.
- For the German press what hope there is that the Trump phenomenon will be promptly overthrown lies in the face of three opponents: “Opponent No. 1: The other America. Across the country, an anti-Trump movement is growing”… “Opponent No. 2: The Media. Among publishers, producers, filmmakers and journalists, Trump has hardly any friends. CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Hollywood couldn’t warm to the volcanic personality of the new president.”… “Opponent No. 3: The Political Party System. Washington is having an allergic reaction to Trump. Democrats and even Republicans are cooperating on Capitol Hill to investigate the Trump team’s contacts to Russia in a special committee.”
- It is clear on whose side the German economic press is; the bigger question for Merkel is whether in the aftermath of this “war” by Trump, the German people will side with her, and distance themselves from the “American populist”, or whether the backlash against the establishment will reverberate further, leading to even more pain for Merkel in the upcoming polls.
- Finally, should Merkel’s “compromise” approach fail, will Germany respond to Trump’s “declaration of war” in kind, and will it be simply trade, or conventional?
- Hundreds of thousands crowds of women, many wearing bright pink knit hats and carrying Starbucks lattes, swamped into downtown Washington, arriving by bus, train and car on Saturday for a march in opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump one day after the Republican took office.
Cited by AP, a city official in Washington said the turnout estimate for the Women’s March on the National Mall now stands at 500,000 people, more than double the initial predictions. Kevin Donahue is Washington’s deputy mayor for public safety and justice. He says on Twitter that organizers of the march are increasing the turnout estimate to half a million.
- The Washington event is expected to be the largest of a series of marches planned across the world in cities including Sydney, London, Tokyo and New York to criticize Trump’s “often angry, populist rhetoric.”
- Today’s Women’s March on Washington, which will feature speakers, celebrity appearances and a protest walk along the National Mall, is the brainchild of Hawaiian grandmother Teresa Shook and is intended as an outlet for women and their male supporters to vent their frustration and anxiety over Trump’s victory. According to organizers, several hundred thousand people are expected to attend.
- Many participants wore knitted pink cat-eared “pussy” hats, a reference to Trump’s claim in the 2005 video that was made public weeks before the election that he grabbed women by the genitals. The march spotlights the fierce opposition Trump faces as he takes office, a period that is typically more of a honeymoon for a new president. The women said they hoped to send a unity message to Trump.
- Among the prominent democrats praising the rally were Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state thanked attendees on Twitter for “standing, speaking and marching for our values.” She says it’s as “important as ever.” Clinton is also reviving her campaign slogan and says in the tweet she believes “we’re always Stronger Together.”
- Actress America Ferrera said “every single one of us” is under attack by President Donald Trump. Ferrera was speaking at the start of a rally that is opening the Women’s March on Washington. She says people are gathered in the capital and across the country to say to Trump, “We refuse.” The “Ugly Betty” star says the marchers reject demonization of Muslims. She says they also refuse to give up their “right to safe and legal abortions.” Ferrera says the U.S. won’t ask LGBT Americans to go backward and won’t go from a nation of immigrants to “a nation of ignorance.”
- At the same time, thousands of women took to the streets of European capitals to join “sister marches” in Asia against Trump ahead pf the Washington rally. Waving banners with slogans like “Special relationship, just say no” and “Nasty women unite,” the demonstrators gathered outside the American embassy in Grosvenor Square before heading to a rally in central Trafalgar Square.
- Worldwide some 670 marches were planned, according to the organizers’ website which says more than two million marchers are expected to protest against Trump, who was sworn in as the 45th U.S. president on Friday.
- As Reuters notes, Trump has “angered many liberal Americans with comments seen as demeaning to women, Mexicans and Muslims, and worried some abroad with his inaugural vow on Friday to put “America First” in his decision making.” The protests come a day after the nation’s capital was rocked by violent protests against the new president, with black-clad anti-establishment activists smashing windows, setting vehicles on fire and fighting with riot police who responded with stun grenades.
- The protests illustrated the depth of the anger in a deeply divided country that is still recovering from the scarring 2016 campaign season. Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton, the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. party.
“It’s important that our rights be respected. People have fought hard for our rights and President Trump has made it clear that he does not respect of them,” said Lexi Milani, a 41-year-old restaurant owner from Baltimore, who had ridden down in a bus with 28 friends.
“I just want people to feel empowered and go home and be active. Call your Congressman, run for office,” Milani said. “I don’t want people to feel defeated.”
- Washington subway trains and platforms were packed with people. The Metro sent a service alert warning of “system-wide delays due to extremely large crowds.” At least one station was closed to new passengers because of the crowds backed up on the platform.
- A disparate lineup of organizations including reproductive health provider Planned Parenthood, gun-control group Moms Demand Action and Emily’s List, which promotes female candidates for office, sent large contingents to the event.
- As Reuters adds, some Republicans have criticized feminist, gay-rights and other activist groups critical of Trump as resorting to a divisive style of “identity politics.” Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, a supporter of the marchers, rejected that assertion.
“It is Donald Trump who singled out Muslims for a Muslim registry. It was Donald Trump who made disparaging comments about women. It was Donald Trump who criticized a judge of Mexican heritage. That’s identity politics. We’re sending the message that we’re all Americans.”
- The women have given various reasons for marching, ranging from inspiring other women to run for office to protesting Trump’s plans to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which among other things requires health insurers to cover birth control. Jesse Carlock, 68, a psychologist from Dayton, Ohio was attending her first protest in decades. “Once Mr. Trump was elected, I decided I needed to get active again, and I hadn’t been since the 60s and 70s,” Carlock said. “I’ve got to stand up and be counted as against a lot of what President Trump is saying…about healthcare, immigration, reproductive rights, you name it.”
- Celebrities such as the musicians Janelle Monae and Katy Perry – both of whom supported Clinton in the election – are expected to take part in Saturday’s march. The march organizers said they had extensive security plans in place, and would have both visible and hard-to-spot security workers along the route.
- Trump’s team did not respond to a request for comment about the march.
01.20.17 – Trump And A New Gold-Backed Dollar
- On August 15, 1971, President Nixon killed the last remnants of the gold standard.
- Since then, the dollar has been a pure fiat currency, allowing the Fed to print as many dollars as it pleases.
- Removing the US dollar’s last link to gold eliminated the main motivation for foreign countries to store large dollar reserves and to use the dollar for international trade.
- At this point, demand for dollars was set to fall… along with the dollar’s purchasing power. So the US government concocted a new arrangement to give foreign countries another compelling reason to hold and use the dollar.
- The new arrangement, called the petrodollar system, preserved the dollar’s special status as the world’s reserve currency.
- In short, the US government made a series of agreements with Saudi Arabia between 1972 and 1974, which created the petrodollar.
- The Saudis would use their dominant position in OPEC to ensure that all oil transactions would only happen in US dollars. And the US would guarantee the House of Saud’s survival.
- It worked… for a while.
- The petrodollar filled the void after the US severed the dollar’s last link to gold as the main prop to the dollar’s status as the world’ premier reserve currency.
- So far, the petrodollar has lasted over 40 years. However, the glue is losing its stick.
- I think we’re on the cusp of another paradigm shift in the international financial system, a change at least as fundamental as what happened in 1971 when Nixon severed the dollar’s last link to gold.
- The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US hit historic lows in 2016. I only expect it to get worse. Trump is the first president since the petrodollar system was enacted to be openly hostile toward the Saudis.
- The death of the petrodollar system is my No. 1 black swan event for 2017.
- It raises the question: What will fill the void when the petrodollar inevitably dies?
- When that happens—and it may be imminent—something has to replace it. I think there are only two options.
- Naturally, the global elite want to centralize more power into global institutions. In this case, that means the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
- The IMF issues a type of international currency called the “Special Drawing Right,” or SDR.
- The SDR is nothing new. The globalists have been slowly building it up since 1969. In the near future, it could be used as the premier international currency—the role the dollar has played since the end of World War 2.
- The SDR is simply a basket of other fiat currencies. The US dollar makes up 42%, the euro 31%, the Chinese renminbi 11%, the Japanese yen 8%, and the British pound 8%.
- It’s a fiat currency based on other fiat currencies… a floating abstraction based on other floating abstractions.
- The SDR is not based on sound economics or the interests of the common man. It’s just another cockamamie invention of the economic witch doctors in academia and government.
- The SDR is dangerous. It gives the government—in this case, a global government—more power. It’s a bridge to a powerful global monetary authority, and eventually a global currency.
- Most decent people would consider this a bad thing. That’s why the global elite cloud their scheme with dull and opaque names like “Special Drawing Right.”
- It’s an old trick. Governments have used it for eons.
- The Federal Reserve is an excellent example. After two failed central banking experiments in the 1800s, anything associated with a central bank became deeply unpopular with the American public. So, central bank advocates tried a fresh branding strategy.
- Rather than call their new central bank the Third Bank of the United States (the previous two were the First and Second Banks of the United States), they gave it a vague and boring name. They called it “the Federal Reserve” and managed to hide it in plain sight from the average person.
- Nearly 100 years later, most Americans don’t have the slightest clue what the Federal Reserve is, what it does, or how it has eroded their standard of living.
- I think the same dynamic is at work with the IMF’s “Special Drawing Right.”
- The breakdown of the petrodollar is the perfect excuse for the globalists to usher in their SDR solution.
- So that’s the first option. It’s the global elites’ preferred outcome. It would be a very bad thing for personal and economic freedom. It means more fiat currency, more centralization, and less freedom for the individual.
- The second option is to simply return to gold as the premier international money. Here’s how it could happen…
- Trump might play along with the globalists’ schemes, but I doubt it. He’s the first president who’s openly and sincerely hostile toward globalism. He’s denounced it repeatedly.
- Trump recently said, “We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.”
- In my view, there’s only one way Trump could fight the global elites and their SDR plan: return the dollar to some sort of gold backing.
- Trump has said favorable things about gold in the past. So have some of his advisers.
- It wouldn’t be easy. He’d face one hell of a struggle with the globalists. And winning would be far from certain.
- No matter what, the death of the petrodollar, just like the end of the dollar’s link to gold, will be very good for the dollar price of gold and gold mining stocks.
- When Nixon took the dollar off gold in 1971, gold skyrocketed over 2,300%. It shot from $35 per ounce to a high of $850 in 1980. Gold mining stocks did even better.
- Gold is still bouncing around its lows. Gold mining stocks are still very cheap. I expect returns to be at least as great as they were during that paradigm shift in the international monetary system.
- All this is why what happens after Trump’s inauguration could change everything… in sudden, unexpected ways.
- Reports have been rolling in all evening of vicious mobs of violent protesters around Washington DC attacking Donald Trump supporters in town for the inauguration, including people on their way to and from tonight’s pre-Inauguration “Deploraball” celebration, held at the National Press Club building. Over 1000 guests were invited to the event organized by Mike @Cernovich and the pro-Trump MAGA3X organization.
- As Fox News reports
Some of the hundreds of protesters sprayed Mace, while others were peaceful as law enforcement officers lined the streets to monitor the chaotic scene. At least one passer-by reported bottles were being thrown as he showed off a gash in his head.
- One of the victims was 21 year old Trump supporter and Youtube Journalist James Allsup of Seattle, who was harassed and then punched on camera by members of the “Antifa” protest organization featured in the recent Project Veritas undercover sting.
- After the cameras were off, Allsup was hit on the back of the head with a flagpole requiring a trip to the ER for some staples.
“I was wearing my ‘Make America Great Again’ hat, and a white male came up behind me and swung at me with a flagpole – I kind of blacked out for a minute,” Allsup told Foxnews.com. “Before I knew it my head was gushing blood—there’s blood on my Trump hat.”
- Here is footage of the first encounter in which Allsup is punched:
- Followed by Allsup’s account over Twitter of what took place:
- And to prove it wasn’t staged, here’s the ER report:
- It’s easy to be tough guys when you’re hiding behind balaclavas and greatly outnumber two Trump supporters. It might not go so well next time depending on who these amateur anarchists fuck with next…
- Billionaire investor George Soros spoke to Bloomberg TV in Davos, and said the euphoria among stock investors since the victory of President-elect Donald Trump will end as uncertainty takes over.
- Talking his book, Soros said that “uncertainty is at a peak and actually uncertainty is the enemy of long-term investment,” The chairman of Soros Fund Management added “I don’t think the markets are going to do very well. Right now they’re still celebrating but when reality comes it will prevail.”
- “When reality comes, it will hurt markets” he warned.
- As a reminder, the WSJ reported last week that Soros lost nearly $1 billion as a result of the stock-market rally spurred by Trump’s surprise win in November. Soros became more pessimistic immediately after Trump’s election. But stocks rallied on expectations that Trump’s policies will boost corporate earnings and the overall economy.
- The key highlight of the Soros interview, however, was his vicious slam of his nemesis, Donald Trump, saying “I have described him as an impostor and con man, and a would be dictator” and said that “I’m personally convinced he’s going to fail” because the “the policies that guide him are inherently self-contradictory.”
- He said that “Trump would be a dictator if he could get away with it” but believes that the Constitution of the United States is strong enough to prevent Trump from taking too much power.
- As a reminder, Soros was one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors, and has spent millions to prevent Trump from entering the White House.
- He also said that it’s impossible to predict exactly how Trump will act because he hasn’t actively thought it through, he was surprised when he won. He added that he only started thinking seriously about what he would do after he was elected.
- Some other notable quotes via Forexlive:
- Trump stands for a government that’s the opposite of an open society, something like a dictatorship or a mafia state
- Trump believes his ideas are the will of the people so anyone who is against him is against the people
- Markets will falter as uncertainty takes over
- Speaking about Europe and the UK, he said that Europe is in the process of disintegration, and the process must be reversed: “EU has become too complicated and people are alienated.” He believes that he has overstated the dangers of European disintegration and says that the continent is “not going to disintegrate”, as neither Putin nor China want that outcome.
- The CIA is under pressure from a lot of individuals and groups that question the agency’s relevance in today’s world, even Jack Ma dropped the comment at Davos that $14 Trillion was ‘wasted’ on wars over the years. As we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – The CIA has been a currency manipulator and agency-employee for the banks, since inception. Now, we have the evidence. Due to overwhelming public pressure, the CIA released 13 Million files online which are more than 25 years old, you can search this treasure trove here: Access CIA Crest archive by clicking here.
- Bear in mind that, this is a view ‘back in time’ in an age before computers, we can only surmise based on facts and evidence how the agency is involved in FX operations today. Notably, they were the hand twisting the Swiss arm in 2011 that led to the final destruction of the world’s only ‘real’ currency that had any value intrinsically; the Swiss Franc. Now let’s go back to 1957 to examine our first case example:
- This entire document can be seen here in PDF. Although the operation here seems benign, the controlling of a client-state assets can be key in acheiving whatever goals set out, whether intelligence goals or economic ones. In the case of Egypt, part of the ‘non-aligned’ movement during the post WW2 and Cold War period, in question was mostly their dealings with the Sino-Soviet Bloc, not their internal problems per se. This is interesting as it follows a theme relevant today, that of blocking Russia’s economic success in order to gain a global advantage politically.
- As explained in this groundbreaking book exposing the CIAs banking operations, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the CIA has a simple plan to control the wealth of a nation, first sending in the ‘economists’ offering loans and various economic incentives – if that doesn’t work they send in the ‘jackals’ or CIA hitsquad and finally, when all else fails, they bomb the country into oblivion.
- In this example, the CIA is ‘concerned’ that Egypt will ‘settle debts’ with ‘discounted goods’ purchased from western countries. Sounds like a reasonable deal – but the CIA doesn’t play fair. It’s the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ approach, it’s OK for the CIA to topple foreign leaders and seize the assets of foreign countries, but if another country does it, they are accused of ‘aggression.’ This double standard has been an old CIA trick since the days of spying and confidence tricks began. It also was the beginning of the CIAs ‘banks not tanks’ approach to foreign policy which was used for the greater part of the last 70 years since WW2. For example, if the CIA could control the assets of a foreign country and thus crippling them, it was akin to invading their most critical city successfully. Although this is a no-brainer (so it seems today) in previous times such methods were not feasible to implement. But the CIA grew and evolved in a time of modern communications leading to where we are today, in a flat world based on instant electronic communication around the world.
- For a more modern example, here’s the smoking gun regarding Iraq:
A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time. Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York. The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars.
- So now that the CIA has released 13 Million files and will continue to release more every year on the Crest archive, it will provide investors, historians, authors, academics, bankers, and others the evidence they need to research and confirm what we already knew: The CIA is an agency-employee that works for international banks first, and US Citizens second.
- U.S. B-2 bombers carried out airstrikes on two ISIS camps in Libya overnight, defense officials said Thursday, part of an operation targeting militants driven out last year from their coastal stronghold. The stealth bombers struck jihadis 45 kilometers southwest of Sirte, located halfway between Tripoli and Benghazi.
A map showing location of Sirte, Libya.
- A U.S. official told NBC News that “several dozen” militants were believed to have been killed in the strikes
- According to Reuters the mission was coordinated with Libya’s UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA). The Pentagon added that many of the targets had previously been inside Sirte until it was liberated from ISIS late last year.
ISIS was believed to have about 5,000 fighters in the area at the height of its influence, according to estimates from the head of the United States Africa Command. However, that number is now believed to be around 2,000.
US Precision airstrikes in support of Libyan government forces against ISIS were launched in August 2016.
- Below is the statement released shortly after the bombing by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on Airstrikes in Libya:
In conjunction with the Libyan Government of National Accord, the U.S. military conducted precision airstrikes Wednesday night destroying two ISIL camps 45 kilometers southwest of Sirte. The ISIL terrorists targeted included individuals who fled to the remote desert camps from Sirte in order to reorganize, and they posed a security threat to Libya, the region, and U.S. national interests. While we are still evaluating the results of the strikes, the initial assessment indicates they were successful. This action was authorized by the President as an extension of the successful operation the U.S. military conducted last year to support Libyan forces in freeing Sirte from ISIL control. The United States remains prepared to further support Libyan efforts to counter terrorist threats and to defeat ISIL in Libya. We are committed to maintaining pressure on ISIL and preventing them from establishing safe haven. These strikes will degrade ISIL’s ability to stage attacks against Libyan forces and civilians working to stabilize Sirte, and demonstrate our resolve in countering the threat posed by ISIL to Libya, the United States and our allies.
- Following the strikes, GNA officials said they would continue to clear the territories around Sirte of IS jihadists. The GNA mission to drive out IS militants from Sirte has frequently been aided by US airstrikes.
- Islamic State gained a foothold in Libya after the country plunged into chaos following the NATO-backed ouster of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
All information used from other websites on X22 Report is used for educational/criticism and commentary purposes only.
Fair Use Notice: This video contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair Use notwithstanding we will immediately comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed or modified, wants us to link to their web site, or wants us to add their photo.
The “Fair Use” Provisions outlined in Title 17, Chapter 01 Article 107 of the US Copyright Law states the following:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES or phonorecords or BY ANY OTHER MEANS specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is NOT an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
(1) the PURPOSE and CHARACTER of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for NON-PROFIT educational purposes;
(2) the NATURE of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) THE EFFECT OF THE USE UPON THE POTENTIAL MARKET FOR OR VALUE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.