Sheep Media

The Truth About Disinformation

Globalism

The United Nations Wants a New World Order in Less Than 12 Years

By

Wikipedia states that “The United Nations replaced the League of Nations in 1945, after World War II. Almost every internationally recognized country is in the U.N.; as it contains 193 member states out of the 196 total nations of the world.”  (source)

So when I read the title of this article about the UN wanting a one world government or what we call, a New World Order (NWO), by 2030, I went to wikipedia to see what they had to say about it.

And this is what I found …

I took special notice to how wikipedia noted that in order for this world government to come to fruition, it would be through either violence or peace, which is something that most of us in the truth movement know to be true. But I was quite shocked to see that it was actually being admited.

This goes hand in hand with all the information that we’ve complied about Agenda 2030 to which you can read further on that here.

American Thinker reports:

In the 1960s, an informed but naïve undergraduate, I was walking across the campus of the University of Pennsylvania with the Chairman of the Chemistry Department, Prof. Charles C. Price.  He told me that he was president of the United World Federalists, and asked if I knew what that organization was.  When I said that I did not, he replied that they believed in a one-world government that would grow out of the United Nations.  I was nonplussed as I had never heard anyone suggest that idea before.  To me, the United Nations was a benevolent organization dedicated to pressuring the world community in the direction of peace, and to operating charitable programs to help the struggling, impoverished peoples of the world.   I imagined the UN as a kind of United Way on a worldwide scale.

How would Prof. Price’s vision of a new world government emerge?  Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body.  And rights are the mainstay for uplifting human freedom and the dignity of the individual. The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world:  the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789).

The word “rights” appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document.  The document is literally obsessed with rights, and one must assume they are likewise obsessed with the rights successes as manifested in the United Kingdom, the U.S., and France.

However, there are some deviations from the rights usage we are all familiar with.  In Article 3, Instead of the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” found in our Declaration of Independence, the UN declares everyone’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.”  Are they implying that security will bring happiness?  Or are they implying that happiness is too ephemeral a value, and too Western?  Perhaps more mundane survival goals are needed by most of the world.

We see a reprise of items from our Bill of Rights such as condemnation of cruel and unusual punishment (Article 5), due process (Articles 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 14, 17), illegal search and seizure (Article 12), and freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19,20).  But there are new rights introduced which, as early as 1945, were pointing the way towards intervention by the UN in the daily lives of people throughout the world.

Throughout the document, they assert the right to food, clothing, medical care, social services, unemployment and disability benefits, child care,  and free education, plus the right to “full development of the personality,” (imagine, the UN says I have the right to be me) and the “right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community… and to enjoy the arts” (we each have the right to enjoy a painting or a movie). However, they do not state the right to appear on the “Tonight Show” or “Saturday Night Live”, so there were limits to their largesse.

In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document.  They issued a document entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”  This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government.  The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19.

Unlike the original “mother document” that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership.  Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

What is meant by the term “sustainable?”

The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.  Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”  Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress.

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream.

Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment.  There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water.  Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19.  In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document.

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move.  The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage.  The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of  environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality.

The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well.

Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers.  The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945.

Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?

The Economy Does Not Care Who Won The Midterm Elections

By

The following article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.

Over the past few weeks I received numerous requests from readers to publish my predictions on the outcome of the midterm elections, but I did not do so for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, I view the election process very differently from many people. I do not see it as legitimate in the slightest, therefore my predictions of the past have been based not on voter turnouts, polls or any other such nonsense.  Elections are molded events, framed under the false pretense that the Left/Right paradigm in politics is real. As far as the upper echelons of politics are concerned, the paradigm is completely theatrical.

To be sure, the average American does lean either “left” or “right” on the political spectrum. Such divisions are a natural part of social discourse. However, political theater is designed in most cases to drive citizens away from centrally shared principles of freedom and equal opportunity (not equal outcome) and push them to the far ends of the spectrum toward extremism and zealotry. And to be clear, there is no “good” form of zealotry.

Zealots are not self-aware, and they never subject their own positions to scrutiny. They operate on pure assumption that they are divinely correct in everything they do, and anyone who disagrees with them, even in the slightest, is an enemy that must be destroyed by any means necessary. Zealotry is the root of human atrocity. Zealots are a tidal wave of war and genocide. They are a cancer on the soul of mankind.

Certain groups of people within the establishment, namely globalists that desire total centralized control of every aspect of economy and society, prefer that the public remain as radicalized and divided as possible. For them, zealotry is an asset.

To pursue this goal, they purchase allegiance from politicians through various means, including financial favors, media favors and campaign contributions. There are very few people left in politics that are not part of “the club.” Both Democrat and Republican leaders are essentially on the same side — the globalist side. They attack each other with rhetoric, but when it comes down to actual policy and action, they are all very similar.

The outcome of elections is therefore erroneous in the long term. Their only purpose is to manipulate public psychology to a certain reactionary end game.

When I predicted the election of Donald Trump in 2016 many months before voting commenced, I did so based on which election outcome better served the interests of globalists. I concluded with the highest certainty that Donald Trump would “win” based on the same premise that drove me to predict the success of the Brexit vote in the U.K.; that premise being that the globalists would allow “populists” (conservatives) to gain an illusory foothold on political power, only to then collapse the global economy on their heads and blame them for the disaster.

At the time it was unclear whether Trump would play along with the globalist narrative of conservatives as “selfish bumbling villains.” Today, with his consistent relationships with banking elites and globalist think-tank members, it is obvious that Trump intends to play the role he has been given. Trump’s policy actions the past two years indicate that he is following a model very similar to the one Republican President Herbert Hoover used just before the crash of 1929. Trump was a perfect choice for the globalists.

So, the question I had to ask in terms of the midterm elections is, what outcome best serves globalist interests this time? The only conclusion I could come to in this instance was — it didn’t matter who wins the midterms. The globalists will get their economic crash regardless and conservatives will still be blamed.

The ultimate outcome turned out to be mixed, with Democrats taking the House and Republicans holding the Senate.  The assertion in the mainstream being that this will result in “political gridlock”.  In terms of stock markets, the reaction is not surprisingly euphoric, as it has been not long after almost every election event.  But there are many that assume this is a euphoria that will last.  This is a narrow view of the situation that ignores economic reality.

It is certainly possible that equities will sustain a  jump on the news of a Republican win, but I see this as a very limited event, lasting perhaps one or two weeks. In the long run as December approaches, stocks and every other sector of the economy will continue accelerated declines seen in October.

Here are the facts:

New home sales, an indicator highly valued by mainstream economists, has been in decline for the past year, hitting two-year lows in September.

This has come as a surprise to many mainstream analysts because the story thus far has been that the U.S. is in advanced recovery which should continue the supposed rejuvenation of the housing market. Alternative economists will give you the real story on home sales, though.

The housing “boom” hailed in the mainstream over the past few years was a farce driven primarily by corporate behemoths like Blackstone.  Companies buying up distressed properties across the U.S. using cheap loans and bailouts through the Federal Reserve and turning them into rentals hardly constitutes a “recovery” in housing.

Regular homebuyers have also enjoyed artificially low mortgage rates for many years. But now, mortgage costs are spiking as the Fed raises interest rates, and corporate debt is becoming more expensive, making it less profitable for companies to continue vacuuming up properties.  Add to this the fact that the Fed is now dumping Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) from its balance sheet. These are the same securities that constituted a “toxic” influence that led to the mortgage and derivatives bubble. It is hard to say exactly what the effects will be as they add to existing ARM-style mortgages and derivatives already on the market, but I suspect the result will be destabilizing.

Auto sales, another fundamental indicator used in the mainstream as a signal for economic health, is also failing recently. U.S. auto sales plunged in September from 11 percent to 25 percent depending on the company and make of vehicle. While the mainstream media argues this massive year-over-year decline was due to destructive hurricanes in 2017 creating overt demand, the truth is that the average monthly payment on new vehicles has rocketed to over $525 and interest rates rise due to the Federal Reserve.

Car sales, new and used, have thrived in recent years in most part because of artificially low rates and ARM-like loans to people who cannot afford them. Much like the mortgage bubble in 2008, the auto bubble is set to implode as car payments become too expensive for the average buyer and defaults increase.

The US budget deficit climbed to six year highs under Donald Trump’s watch in 2018 as fiscal spending skyrockets.  Conservatives hoping for budget responsibility and reduced government spending are given a rude awakening once again, as Republicans and Democrats and Trump ALL seek bigger government.  This is hardly gridlock.  In fact, there has been resounding unity in Washington for ever increasing power, and ever increasing costs.

The trade deficit, which was supposed to decline aggressively in the face of Trump’s trade war, has actually climbed to record highs with China (among other nations).  I have heard claims that the outcome of the midterms will force Trump to end the trade war because he is no longer receiving backing from the Federal Reserve or Congress.  The trade war will not stop.  It provides perfect cover for central banks as they continue to remove artificial support from the overall economy.

Perhaps the biggest factor in economic decline in the U.S. will be corporate debt, as mentioned earlier. Corporate debt has jumped to record highs not seen since 2008, with debt-to-cash levels in 2017 hitting lows of 12 percent. Meaning, on average for every $1 of cash a company has in reserve it owes $8 in debt.

How is all this debt being generated? It’s all about stock buybacks. In 2018, U.S. corporations increased spending on stock buybacks by 48%, while only increasing spending on development by 19%. Meaning, corporations are spending far more capital, and borrowing far more money, just to keep their stock prices artificially propped up than they are spending money to invest in future growth.

For almost a decade stock markets have been dependent on two pillars: near zero interest rates and asset purchases by the Fed. Stock buybacks are reliant on low rates and the corporate ability to borrow essentially free money, which they then cycle into equities to buy up shares, reducing the amount of existing shares on the market and thereby increasing the value of the remaining shares through a form of legal manipulation.

But as the Fed raises rates and stops acting as the buyer of last resort, corporate borrowing becomes more expensive and buybacks will decline. In fact, the last half of 2018 shows a marked drop in announced buybacks, as the apparent peak in July fades.  As December approaches, the Fed is set to match interest rates with their official inflation rate, or the “neutral rate”.  This is something that has not been done for decades.

I believe stock buybacks will falter at this time, as the cost of the exorbitant debt needed to continue propping up stocks will become too high.

In 2016, globalists needed a “conservative” president to sit in the Oval Office as the Federal Reserve pulled the plug on artificial economic life support by raising interest rates into the greatest corporate debt crisis since 2008. At this point, that program seems to be in full swing.

The midterms are now over, but it is important to understand that where economic consequences are concerned, the result would have been the same no matter who came out on top. It makes sense for the globalists to desire a dominant Republican party, for when they crash markets the blame would fall entirely on the heads of conservatives. On the other hand, it also makes sense for globalists to introduce a Democratic takeover of Congress, for they can continue to push citizens to further political extremes as the Left blames the Right for the financial crisis while the Right blames the Left for political interference.

In the meantime, the banking elites can simply blame the extreme political divide, wait until the crash runs its course and then sweep in after the dust settles to admonish the “capitalist structure,” barbaric nationalism, populism, etc. They will shake their fingers at all of us as if we should be ashamed and then offer their own solution to the disaster, which will surely include even more centralization and more power for the banking class.

The Fed will continue to raise rates and cut assets.  The trade war will escalate. The housing market will continue to falter, auto markets will implode, and corporate debt will become a millstone on the neck of stock markets.

Economic function and repair are far beyond the scope of any political body to fix when the dysfunction reaches the point we are at today. To believe otherwise is foolhardy.  To believe that the political elites actually want to fix the economy is even more foolhardy. The answer is not replacing one set of political puppets with another set of political puppets, but for regular people to begin localizing their own production and trade — to decouple from dependency on the existing system and start their own system. Only through this, and the removal of the globalist tumor from its position of power and influence, will anything ever change for the better.

Fighting Back Against Globalism Requires An Honest Movement To Decentralize

By

The following article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Alt-Market.com.

Over a decade ago, critics of the liberty movement would often argue that it was not enough to simply point out all the problems plaguing our economy — we needed to also offer solutions. Of course, a common Alinsky tactic is to demand your opponents solve all the world’s ailments before they can earn the right to complain. “If you can’t give us a solution, then stop going on and on about the problem,” they would squawk incessantly like parrots.

I don’t agree that our right to analyze the instabilities of our financial system is predicated on our ability to fix the issue outright. In fact, that sounds rather insane. How can we fix the problem if we don’t educate the public on the problem first?

However, I do think that the only people who have the drive and the knowledge to ultimately come up with a solution are those in the liberty movement. Who else is going to try? Who else is even qualified?

I have seen many ideas come and go over the years. The thing about fixing what is broken is that while you might get most people to agree on the problem, getting a majority of them to agree on a solution is a nightmare. Once enough people agree on a solution, you then have to find a way to motivate them to act on it. The masses often want desperately to help themselves, they just don’t like it when a lot of effort or sacrifice is required.

This is why we only tend to see organized activism and a push toward self-sufficiency AFTER a crisis has already struck. Most human beings require obvious incentive before they become motivated. They need immediate gratification. The people that can see the long game, who can see the incentives years or generations down the road, we call “leaders.” The hope is that one day every individual can be educated to the point that they can self-lead; that each individual will become an innovator and problem solver in their own right.

One solution to fight back against subversive globalism that I have promoted for most of my career as an analyst is decentralization. And, I still hold to this day that it is the only practical way to ensure that free people are protected from the threats created by international banks and globalist institutions bent on shaping the world to their will. This solution, though, requires individual action as well as group action.

Globalists desire a world system that forces everyone to participate, either through fear or necessity. This system is designed to promote dependency (slavery) while also promoting a feeling of isolation and helplessness. It is meant to erase self-reliance as a model for living, while also squashing any potential for voluntary organization. To go to war with such a system, we have to achieve the opposite goals.

Liberty activists have to lead by example, first by educating the public on the concept of the non-aggression principle — the principle that force is not an acceptable method of compelling a group of people to organize in the way you wish. Force is not incentive, it is criminal. Force is only an acceptable reaction when someone else is trying to harm or enslave you and those around you. This concept is paramount to the long-term survival of any society. It should be codified and taught to each new generation.

Next, liberty activists need to organize locally into voluntary groups based on mutual aid. Modern civilization has been directed over many decades to assume that participation in the system is mandatory and that the survival of the system is paramount over the rights or prosperity of the individual. But a system that is hostile to individual liberty does not deserve to exist. It should not be allowed to survive.

People have to walk away and build something else.

Voluntarism is the key to changing decades if not centuries of misallocated human labor and time. Imagine a world in which every person is a “free agent,” and they join groups (or partnerships) based on shared goals or shared beliefs rather than being born into servitude — fuel to keep a global machine that does not care about them running. They join these groups based on their interests, abilities, merit and how they might help a particular project progress. Then they are free to leave the group whenever they wish or when the project is done.

In other words, voluntarism is a kind of return to a tribal system, but one in which some tribes exist temporarily based on what they plan to achieve.  The GOAL becomes the focus, instead of the endless perpetuation of a group that has outlived its usefulness. The more legitimate achievements for the betterment of humanity a tribe attains successfully, the longer it would stay relevant.

The incentive to better one’s self would be considerable in a voluntary society, for you are competing against every other individual that is also improving their own skill sets and knowledge for a spot in each project or tribe.  Individual excellence would become the core virtue of such a civilization.

Voluntarism is perhaps a lofty vision, but one that can be pursued in steps. One of the first steps is self-sufficiency and production.

Decentralization requires each person and group to become production capable.

There was a time not more than a century ago when the majority of Americans learned skill sets through family or apprenticeship that gave them the ability to produce necessary goods and services. This idea has all but disappeared today. The principle of self-reliance is treated almost as a joke in popular media now. And many municipalities actually punish individual attempts at growing one’s own food, collecting water or even started a small business. Production is discouraged through overt taxation and bureaucracy. Nevertheless, these things have to be done if we are to break from the existing system.

Learning a trade skill is something anyone can do to improve their chances at survival. Organizing into trade groups that barter their skills and goods is the next step.

Tribalism is commonly presented in the mainstream as a barbaric and outdated mode of living, which is why I highly recommend it. If the mainstream is constantly chopping away at an idea with an ideological hatchet, then is must be a threat to the powers that be.  The more centralized civilization becomes, the less varied its ideas are, the less self-sufficient it is and the more easily controlled it is. This is the point, of course. Globalists use any means at their disposal to enforce centralization not because they think it will serve to better mankind, but because it gives them more dominance over mankind.

Tribes may have their differences or even come to conflict if they do not respect the nonaggression principle. But any war that erupts between two tribes is never going to match the horror of the centralized military industrial complex with its never-ending conflagrations on a global scale. By the same token, tribalism prevents the possibility of a single world system that claims to “end all war” while enslaving the populace through dependency and force. “One ring to rule them all” is not the answer. It never was.

It is my belief that the human endeavor to improve life and improve how we interact with the Earth itself must be worked toward by decentralized efforts, otherwise the chances of civilization being led down a destructive path by a small group of psychopathic people is high.

Today, most innovation is bottlenecked through control mechanisms that only benefit the elites. They promote their puppets to government and in exchange government provides them special protections. Most science revolves around their goals alone, not the betterment of humanity. Most social discourse is designed to divide people in anger and cultism rather than provide greater understanding. Geopolitically, they preach about the erasure of national borders and the unification of society, while at the same time using trickery and subversion to trigger wars all over the world. They have a monopoly on the direction of human progress, but not a monopoly on human thought…not yet.

Our job is to dismantle their monopolies by starting our own competing systems that serve our interests far better. In this way we create redundancy that shields us from economic collapse, engineered or otherwise. In fact, if we become more independent as producers and organize our own local economies, we might even welcome the collapse of the globalist system as a useless parasitic husk, rather than fear its collapse as a sign of the “Apocalypse.”  Also, we would be better positioned to stop globalists from using their “order from chaos” model. They can only create chaos for us if we are dependent on the system they are deliberately crashing.

Globalist efforts to co-opt decentralization movements are rampant, which tells me that the model is indeed a threat to them. The cryptocurrency scam is one such example; it was originally sold to the liberty movement as a “decentralizing” currency system that would provide anonymity in trade and an alternative that would crush central banks. Instead, we find that crypto provides the exact OPPOSITE of anonymity as a perfect tracking mechanism through the blockchain and that international bankers LOVE blockchain tech as they invest heavily in the arena.

Another example of co-option is the propaganda surrounding the narrative of the new “multi-polar” world order. The claim that nations are moving away from the dollar-based reserve currency system as a means to “decentralize” is a lie. They are in fact moving away from the dollar, but also quietly into the arms of the IMF and its SDR basket as various countries congeal into a single global currency system. That is to say, they are getting ready to trade one centralized system for an even more centralized system.

There is no decentralization happening today, and it will not happen on a national scale as long as governments remain infected by globalist controlled politicians. It must happen at the local level; from the bottom up, not the top down.

I also realize that if movements to decentralize locally become successful and the idea catches on, globalists will attempt to use violence to stop us. If this occurs, at least we will be far more equipped to respond as self-sufficient and organized producers. The violence question must be answered in a separate article from this one. Independence comes first, and we can declare it by decentralizing away from the existing and festering totalitarian model.

The West IS Engineering its Own Downfall!!!

By

PLEASE NOTE: This article was written by James Corbett and originally published at
corbettreport.com on April 12, 2014

Reports out of Moscow indicate that Russia is on the verge of signing the “holy grail” of gas deals with China. The deal between Russian state-owned gas firm Gazprom and Beijing would see as much as 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year flowing through the first proposed Russia-China pipeline by 2018.

The agreement has apparently been in the works for years, but recent events on Moscow’s western flank (read: the Ukrainian situation) has moved the timetable on the plan up dramatically, with the last sticking point being the price.

If the deal is signed next month during Putin’s state visit to China, as many analysts are speculating will happen, it will be a significant event not only economically, but geopolitically.

Given the fact that Russia, the world’s largest gas producer, and China, the world’s largest gas consumer, are neighbors it would be logical to assume that a gas pipeline between the two countries already exists.

UPDATE: Russia and China sign historic $400 billion gas deal

But logic and geopolitics seldom mix, and tensions between the two formerly communist countries (however one characterizes China’s current political and economic system) have remained ever since border disputes brought Moscow and Beijing to the brink of war in the 1960s.

Establishing a gas link would thus be a very powerful signal of the growing understanding between the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon that their future lies more with each other than it does with a NATO-backed alliance that is increasingly encircling and isolating them.

Speaking of logic, this latest deal, if it is signed after all, would only be the logical extension of all of the moves toward cooperation between Russia, China and their ex-Soviet satellites that we’ve been seeing in recent years.

There’s the rise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The “SCO” encompasses China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan waiting in the wings as observer nations, and Belarus, Sri Lanka and Turkey as “dialogue partners.”

Originally the “Shanghai Five” of signatories to the 1996 Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions, the group has gone on to deepen their military, intelligence and security ties, staging joint military exercises since 2003 and China-Russia war games since 2005. They are also coordinating on security matters, including a 2004 agreement on a Regional Antiterrorism Structure and the 2006 cooperation agreement with CSTO, the NATO counterbalance in the region.

ALSO READ: Russia, China Sign Deal to Bypass U.S. Dollar!

There’s the rise of the BRICS.

From a theoretical construct in an economic paper in 2001 to a very real political association with annual summits and ministers meetings today, the rise of the BRICS grouping in the past decade has been undeniable. Although the days of double digit growth and “taking over the world” reports are now a thing of the past, the association remains important for its ability to fuse developing economies as diverse as those of Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa into an economic and political counterbalance to the so-called “Washington consensus” of the World Bank / IMF regime.

While China is undeniably in the BRICS driver’s seat, the access that the five-nation grouping gives each other’s member nations to far-flung parts of the globe, and the ways that the members’ economies can find surprisingly symbiotic notes (like that of the relation between Brazil and China) have made it into more than the sum of its parts, and it is now looking to expand its regional influence with the creation of the BRICS development bank.

There’s the rise of the Eurasian Union.

Set to come into existence on New Year’s Day 2015, the proposed economic union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia has been modeled on the European Union, complete with a “Eurasian Economic Commission” based on the European Commission. The Commission will coordinate integration on customs issues, macroeconomics, energy and financial policy, labour migration and other key issues, with the end goal being a European Union-style supra-national organization very much like the EU. Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are already waiting in the wings to get on board with the union, with Kyrgyzstan shutting down the U.S. Manas air base (allegedly used to ship drugs out of Afghanistan) and expanding the Russian air base that it currently hosts as a goodwill gesture.

SURPRISE: Beijing’s new Silk Road may extend to Moscow-led Eurasian union

Once again, the idea that Russia would seek closer economic, political and military cooperation with its regional neighbours is a perfectly logical and predictable outcome of the pressure that is building on Russia’s western flank from the US and NATO, not just the recent sanctions, but the years-long build-up of “ballistic missile defense” in Eastern Europe and NATO’s steady progress in swallowing up Eastern European nations.

****For those who are still locked in the mindset that moves on the geopolitical chessboard are essentially random, with countries scattering this way and that like billiard balls at the break, this poses a puzzling question:

Why would the NATO allies be backing Russia into a corner to the point that it starts engaging in these alliances?

After all, the more Russia turns to its regional allies the more it weans itself and its economy off of the very system that could provide diplomatic and political pressure points for NATO to press upon when needed.

In other words, why is NATO helping to push their geopolitical rivals into a closer union? Are they trying to build up their own enemy?

For those who like their answers up front, that answer is “yes.”

ALSO READ: Every Single American NEEDS to See This!!!

For those who need to see the argument before they arrive at the conclusion, there are no shortage of stories demonstrating how Russia, China, and their “resistance bloc” allies have been built up BY THE WEST in recent years.

The sanctions that have been levied against Iran in recent years have steadily driven that country into bilateral trade agreements that not only circumvent the sanctions, but help ease the country and its trading partners off their dependency on the dollar.

There was the ‘gas-for-gold‘ swap between Iran and Turkey that skirted the sanctions. There was the ‘junk-for-oil‘ trade between Iran and India/China. There was the rouble-denominated bilateral agreement signed between Russia and Iran in 2012.

In the long run, the west succeeded in doing damage to the Iranian economy, but they also succeeded in BUILDING UP TRADING ALLIANCES that skirt the dollar (and weaken future sanctions regimes) altogether.

The growing naval and aerial threat of the Chinese military has US technology to thank, not only by direct military transfer (as a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whistleblowerdemonstrated the Clinton administration did in the 1990s) but by indirect (and illegal) transfers via Israel.

And just last month, a congressional investigation uncovered evidence that the US government was planning to give Russia high level military technology for use in training their troops as part of the FY2015 budget, even as they were talking about tough sanctions and dire consequences for Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

The Chinese industrial juggernaut did not just spring up overnight; the infrastructure for China’s economic marvel of the last decade was laid in the decade before.

In the seven years from 1994 to 2001 alone, direct investment of US-based multinational corporations in China quadraupled from $2.6 billion to $10.5 billion.

Source Data: Excel file

In the same time period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country. The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a who’s who of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.

And the BRICS association that economists were wringing their hands over in previous years as a major threat to American-led western economic neoliberalism? It was actually CREATED BY GOLDMAN SACHS, an outgrowth of a research paper that was convincing enough that it actually caused the four nations (of the then-“BRIC” grouping) to start a political process that made the paper into reality.

It seems that as we enter the world of the “new cold war” there is western backing behind every aspect of this new rivalry. And sure enough, the much-ballyhooed Cold War 2.0 is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

China’s decision to abstain from the UN Security Council vote on Crimea’s annexation last month was a significant turning point in and of itself. Given China’s unease over its own territorial issues (Tibet, Xinjiang), the fact that they didn’t vote for the resolution condemning a nation’s right to unilaterally secede from a country speaks volumes about China and Russia’s increasing cooperation in geopolitical matters.

The inescapable conclusion is that the NATO powers have helped to create their own enemy.

They have helped to arm and fund that enemy, and then poked and prodded him into reaction. We would do well to remember the true genesis of this conflict the next time we are told about the “New Cold War.”

For those who would prefer to listen to this in video, see James Corbett’s interview with FinanceAndLiberty.com below:

This is an article from The Corbett Report Subscriber, the weekly e-newsletter for members of corbettreport.com. Please support this website and this work by signing up for a Corbett Report membership today for as little as 100 Japanese Yen ($1 US) per month. CLICK HERE for details.

If Americans Only Knew What The Globalists Are Systematically Destroying, They’d WAKE UP!!!

By

When people are dependent on the government they are much easier to control. 

We are often told that we are not “compassionate” when we object to the endless expansion of government social programs, but that is not how the debate should be framed.  In America today, well over 100 million people receive money from the federal government each month, and the number of Americans that are truly financially independent is continually shrinking.

In fact, only 25 percent of all Americans have more than $10,000 in savings right now according to one survey. 

If we eventually get to the point where virtually all of us are dependent on the government for our continued existence, that would give the globalists a very powerful tool of control.  In the end, they want as many of us dependent on the government as possible, because those that are dependent on the government are a lot less likely to fight against their the globalist agenda. (SEE: The UN Have Unveiled Their Master Plan For The Next 14 years: It’s Terrifying…)

Back in 1992, the bottom 90 percent of American income earners brought in more than 60 percent of the country’s income. But last year that figure slipped to just 49.7 percent.

The wealth of our society is increasingly being concentrated at the very top, and the middle class is steadily being eroded.

Surveys have found that somewhere around two-thirds of the country is living paycheck to paycheck at least part of the time, and so living on the edge has become a way of life for most Americans.

Earlier today, I came across a Business Insider article that was bemoaning the fact that the U.S. economy seems to be rather directionless at this point…

  • We do not have a real plan for health care, and costs continue to gobble up American wages.
  • We do not have a plan for dealing with globalization and economic change, but that change continues to shape our economy.
  • We don’t have a plan to update our decrepit infrastructure.
  • The one plan we did have — the Federal Reserve’s post-financial crisis program — is about to be unwound, marking the end of the last clear, executable plan to bolster America’s economy.

Ultimately, the truth is that we don’t actually need some sort of “central plan” for our economy.  We are supposed to be a free market system that is not guided and directed by central planners, but many Americans don’t even understand the benefits of free market capitalism anymore.

However, that Business Insider article did make a great point about globalization.

Most people don’t realize that our economy is slowly but surely being integrated into a global economic system.  This is really bad for American workers, because now they are being merged into a global labor pool in which they must compete directly for jobs with workers in other countries where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.

Even down in Mexico, many autoworkers are only making $2.25 an hour…

Most of the workers at the new Audi factory in the state of Puebla, inaugurated in 2016 and assembling the Audi Q4 SUV, which carries a sticker price in the US of over $40,000 for base versions, make $2.25 an hour, according to the Union.

Volkswagen, which owns Audi, started building Beetles in Puebla in 1967 and has since created a vast manufacturing empire in Mexico, with vehicles built for consumers in Mexico, the US, Canada, and Latin American markets.

Volkswagen, Ford, GM, or any of the global automakers, which can manufacture just about anywhere in the world, always search for cheap labor to maximize the bottom line.

Would you want to work for $2.25 an hour?

Over time, millions of good paying jobs have been leaving high wage countries and have been going to low wage countries. The United States has lost more than 70,000 manufacturing facilities since China joined the WTO, and this is one of the biggest factors that has eroded the middle class. (SEE: NAFTA Is 20 Years Old – 20 Facts That Show How It Destroyed The Economy)

In a desperate attempt to maintain our standard of living, we have gone into increasing amounts of debt.  Of course our federal government is now 20 trillion dollars in debt, but on an individual level we are doing the same thing.  Today, American consumers are over 12 trillion dollars in debt, and it gets worse with each passing day.

The borrower is the servant of the lender, and most Americans have become debt slaves at this point.  This is something that Paul Craig Roberts commented on recently…

Americans carry on by accumulating debt and becoming debt slaves. Many can only make the minimum payment on their credit card and thus accumulate debt. The Federal Reserve’s policy has exploded the prices of financial assets. The result is that the bulk of the population lacks discretionary income, and those with financial assets are wealthy until values adjust to reality.

As an economist I cannot identify in history any economy whose affairs have been so badly managed and prospects so severely damaged as the economy of the United States of America. In the short/intermediate run policies that damage the prospects for the American work force benefit what is called the One Percent as jobs offshoring reduces corporate costs and financialization transfers remaining discretionary income in interest and fees to the financial sector. But as consumer discretionary incomes disappear and debt burdens rise, aggregate demand falters, and there is nothing left to drive the economy.

This debt-based system continuously funnels wealth toward the very top of the pyramid, because it is the people at the very top that hold all of the debts. (SEE: SHOCKING: Just 8 Men Own HALF The World’s Wealth!) 

Each year it gets worse, and most Americans would be absolutely stunned to hear that the top one percent now control 38.6 percent of all wealth in the United States…

The richest 1% of families controlled a record-high 38.6% of the country’s wealth in 2016, according to a Federal Reserve report published on Wednesday.

That’s nearly twice as much as the bottom 90%, which has seen its slice of the pie continue to shrink.

The bottom 90% of families now hold just 22.8% of the wealth, down from about one-third in 1989 when the Fed started tracking this measure.

So how do we fix this?

Well, the truth is that we need to go back to a non-debt based system that does not funnel all of the wealth to the very top of the pyramid.

Unfortunately, most Americans don’t even realize that our current debt-based system is fundamentally flawed, and it will probably take an unprecedented crisis in order to wake people up enough to take action.

About the author: Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

THIS Is What The New Global Currency Will Look Like!

By

While the fantasy is that crypto is about decentralization and freedom, it is actually a key to institutionalizing the opposite.

This article by Brandon Smith was originally published at alt-market.com.

This week the International Monetary Fund shocked some economic analysts with an announcement that America was “no longer first in the world” as a major economic growth engine. This stinging assertion falls exactly in line with the narrative out of the latest G20 summit; that the U.S. is fading away leaving the door open for countries like Germany and China to join forces and fill the power void. I wrote about this rising relationship between these two nations as well as the ongoing controlled demolition of America’s economy in my article ‘The New World Order Will Begin With Germany And China’.

I find it interesting that the IMF is once again taking the lead on perpetuating the image of a failing U.S., just as they often push for the concept of a single global currency system to replace the dollar as the world reserve.

The most common faulty counter-argument I run into when outlining the globalist agenda to supplant the dollar with the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket system is that “the IMF is a U.S. government controlled organization that would never undermine U.S. authority.” Obviously, the people who make this argument have been thoroughly duped.

The IMF is constantly and actively undermining America’s economic position, because the IMF is NOT an American controlled organization; its loyalty is to globalism as an ideology as well as the international financiers that dominate central banking. America’s supposed “veto power” within the IMF is incidental and meaningless — it has not stopped the IMF from chasing the replacement of the the dollar structure and forming the fiscal ties that stand as the root of what they sometimes call the “global economic reset.”

To illustrate how the IMF narrative supports the globalist narrative, I suggest comparing the 2009 “predictions” of George Soros on China replacing the U.S. as the world’s economic engine to the IMF’s latest analysis on the decline of America.

The IMF cares only about centralizing everything, from currency to trade to governance. If the sacrifice of the old world system (the U.S. dollar) is required to create their new world system, then that is what they will do.

If you have read my article ‘The Federal Reserve Is A Saboteur — And The “Experts” Are Oblivious’, then you understand that the Fed is also perfectly on board with this plan for a global reset. The central bankers, regardless of the nation they happen to reside, stick together and function as agents of larger controlling organisms like the Bank for International Settlements.

The agenda is not really veiled in secrecy, as it has been openly admitted to on numerous occasions by globalist media outlets. Mohamed El-Erian, former CEO of PIMCO, recently praised the concept of using the IMF SDR as a world currency mechanism and as a means to combat “the rise of populism.” However, the most “honest” of these incidences of admission was, of course, the article Get Ready For The Phoenix published in the Rothschild controlled magazine The Economist in 1988; an article which announced the beginning of a new global currency mechanism using the SDR as a bridge starting in 2018.

I have noticed in the past month that there has been a concerted disinformation campaign on the internet attempting to debunk the article from The Economist by stating that it “never really existed” and is merely a product of conspiracy websites. So, I will put that claim to rest right now, permanently, by pointing out that magazine and research archives completely unrelated to “conspiracy theory” have the Phoenix issue on record. It is undeniable — the article was indeed published by The Economist and does in fact exist.

Moving on…

Critics of the notion of a single global monetary framework tend to dismiss any evidence of the plan, usually due to their poor understanding of how currencies rise and fall and a poor understanding of the current monetary climate. They will argue that the SDR basket does not have the capacity to replace the dollar and that there is no other mechanism in the world with the liquidity to do so. In other words, “Where is this global currency going to come from?”

The fact is, it already exists, and it is right under their noses.

When The Economist wrote about a global currency being launched in 2018, they perhaps did not have a precise inkling back then on how it would come about. They do mention clearly the strategy of using the IMF’s SDR as a stepping stone to that global currency, calling it the “Phoenix,” as an example. They also mention the decline of the U.S. as being necessary in the wake of this shift into complete centralization.

These two events are taking place right now, with the American economy in steady and ever steeper destabilization, as well as the rise of the SDR basket as a “stopgap” for nations seeking to decouple from the dollar as the world reserve.

But what about the currency itself? The SDR might be the framework that will reign in various nations under one nefarious economic umbrella, allowing the IMF to dictate currency exchange rates at will until their one world system can be established, but what will the average person ultimately be using as a unit of trade and how will the globalists maintain monetary subjugation over the public?

How I Took The Red Pill And Realized Everything In Our Cult(Ure) Is A Lie

By

By Jeff Berwick

Jeff discusses his early experiences in business and the dot com crash, his long series of awakenings starting with reading The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin in 2002.

He discusses health and well being, fasting, 9/11, what is going on in the USA and how to get out, finding freedom and much more.

Via The Dollar Vigilante:

Visit Jeff at DollarVigilante.com. Subscribe to him on YouTube at Dollar Vigilante and Anarchast.

What We Didn’t Learn At Bilderberg 2017

By

What do we know about the secret, behind-closed-door globalist soiree that was Bilderberg 2017 in Chantilly, Virginia? Only what the Bilderbergers told us, and we know they’re lying to us about who is in attendance so why should we trust them about anything?

READ MORE: The UN Have Unveiled Their Master Plan For The Next 14 years: It’s Terrifying… 

This year James Corbett breaks down what we were and weren’t told about what was happening at Bilderberg, and what other globalist conferences might be worth keeping our eye on.

Via corbettreport: