Better-Management Newsletter

Better-Management Newsletters keep you up to date with vital world issues. Note: no more until the New Year – your editor is AWOL from 26 November.

Scroll down to read the latest editions.  Scroll to the end for links to previous editions.

Better-Management Newsletter 25 November

 Geopolitics, US in limbo, EU problems mount, Energy conundrums

The warning is clear…Don’t go to Europe this holiday season…

After Brexit and “the Donald”, what next?  Right wing France?  Well we know from friends in France that they are very worried and not just about the Muslim hordes… but can this be correct?

As options look less palatable, it is only logical that the reactions will be more extreme.  This article from Stratfor sets the scene…

We have seen Duterte in the Philippines lurch to the right and start killing the drug dealers.  We have seen the Turkish abandon secularism and the new Islamic state of Turkey is now arresting all those who disagree.  Perhaps the Turks may join the SCO instead of NATO now…


The problems being encountered by “globalisation” make one wonder whether enhanced versions of “nationalism” will replace that.  These are Doug Casey’s views on that…

Iran tries to influence Trump’s position on the Iranian nuclear/sanctions issues…

Next of course is Italy’s referendum to be held on 4 December…

 The Economy

The US dollar is at 14 year highs and we are seemingly back in the “roaring 20’s”…from Seeking Alpha…

The four major U.S. stock market benchmarks closed at all-time highs again on Tuesday, with the Dow ending above 19,000 and the S&P 500 finishing above 2,200 for the first time, and the Nasdaq and Russell 2000 posing new record closes. Futures markets suggest U.S. equities will stabilize today, as oil steadies after an impressive run. Investors are also looking toward U.S. reports on jobless claims, durable goods and consumer confidence. “

And from the Financial Times…

But how will Mr Trump deal with his inherited mountain of debt?  Add to it perhaps?

This year USD1.8 trillion of extra government debt was added to the US ledger and that means plenty of window dressing that stops in 2017.

Folk were too polite to talk about the Ford Motor Co downturn…because that would have spoiled Hillary’s story.  But the auto sales problems are just beginning…

The USA could move into recession in 2017 despite the Trump promise of jobs for all.  One signal is the new car sales.  Part of the spike in debt from auto loans, credit card debt, student loans and general business debt that all adds up to a “sword of Damocles” hanging over the US economy.


Europe isn’t travelling too well either…

Spooky coincidences and two banks that look like they were managed by Charles Ponzi…

I know that exponential growth in a finite world must soon come to an end.  I am not sure when, nor what to do about the consequences.  Yet in this conundrum, the only solutions involve unthinkable options.  The crash approaches ….

Which banks present the most globally systemic risk?

Let’s just reprise…if one fails, all fall down.  Like the plague of the 15th century.

Hedges and other derivatives act to benefit one party at the expense of another…there are always winners and losers.  However I doubt we will soon find out how much has been won and lost in the oil price collapse after mid 2014.  Mexico seems a recent winner…

The derivative losses are in the low trillions from the oil price crash according to some folks.  I wonder how these will affect the global economy?

The war on cash seems to be a global initiative…probably supported by the IMF and G20 countries…another form of globalised initiatives to control the vastly greater numbers of people than there were pre WW2 (i.e. formerly 2.5 billion, now 7.4 billion).  India and Mexico is where the process seems silliest…

The British public see the same wage pressures that have given rise to Trump…

The ECB is warning of a risky time to come…aren’t things bad enough in the EU already?

The US dollar is rising against other currencies and is arguably in very short supply.  How will this affect emerging markets?

Including the Chinese Renminbi…

Things are getting just plain weird!


 Sooner or later the massive Ghawar oil field has to max out its water cut.  Already the Saudis are separating far more water from the Ghawar oil than the oil itself.  So they must start to ramp up offshore exploration for when Ghawar dies…(then the world loses 5 million bbls per day of sweet light Saudi crude)…

As well as selling off part of Saudi Aramco of course…

Meanwhile in the USA, President Elect Trump is getting set to change everything about fossil fuels…

The coal workers and oil drillers elected him and he intends to deliver…

On 30th November OPEC meets to try to deal with the surplus oil production and increase oil prices.

Of the oil surplus some is from the North Sea and has been held in tankers…

Meantime a sensible move by Tesla and excellent marketing…

Now that Tesla has officially acquired SolarCity (NASDAQ:SCTY), it’s not wasting any time showing what the combined entity can do. The company is running the island of Ta’u (in American Samoa) on a solar energy microgrid that, at 1.4 megawatts, can cover “nearly 100%” of its 600 residents’ electrical needs. It’s not just the 5,328 solar panels that are key – it’s the 60 Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) Powerpacks that offer 6 megawatt-hours of energy storage.”

I have been trying to validate progress with these battery claims, but it appears they are not yet “out of the laboratory”.  In other words unlikely to be commercialised for some time…

There is still plenty of time for the mythological EESU to “cut them off at the pass” …or not, as the case may be.


Better-Management Newsletter 19 November

 Geopolitics: like horse racing, the only certainty is the uncertainty.

Donald Trump has a recipe for everything,  albeit several are evolving as January 19th 2017 approaches and his new team are selected.

The problem is that instead of a heading the USA into a deflationary crisis, he could lead the world into a high inflationary crisis.  Or not?  How he won the POTUS is intriguing to many.  He secured the Republican nomination against all odds and reason because he appealed to core values of people’s jobs and incomes as spelled out in the Daily Reckoning article below.  But how he landed the White House was as much due to the way Hillary alienated her core constituency.  Also the fact that, as President Abraham Lincoln said ‘you can’t fool all of the people all of the time’.

IMHO, the Clinton Foundation’s activities since Bill’s days in the White House have bordered on the illegal (as per Jerome Corsi’s book on the subject) and Hillary has crossed the line by using her Secretary of State role to advance the Clinton family’s personal endeavours.  Along with the Benghazi fiasco that led in part to the strengthening of Al Qaeda and ISIS, Hillary’s aid, Ms Huma Abedin also caused her to lose parts of her core constituency…

Donald Trump cannot deliver for his coal mates in part because there is too much cheap natural gas in the USA and that is a cheaper energy source than coal as well as being less polluting.  But he will usher in an era of protectionism and create huge government deficits as he creates “shovel-ready” jobs.  I will elaborate further in the Economy section.

The world’s problems are not just too much debt and flourishing currency wars.  Society within the “globalised” OECD has been given an injection of socialism that persuades everyone that the state owes them a living.

Many, many emails ago, possibly 8 years ago, I alerted you to the writings of Ayn Rand, the author of “Atlas Shrugged,” a book about the way she thought this creeping socialism will end.  Perhaps we have already seen some of the results of using globalisation to transfer low wage roles from our own school leavers to the poor of other countries – and the dissatisfaction of the dispossessed.  Unfortunately we have also transferred knowledge of all manufacturing processes, together with the intellectual property and capital equipment to the low wage economies – as well as the access to raw materials.  So now the OECD has been largely hollowed out and our poor live on handouts.  So the USA now has Trump – the antithesis.

“Who is John Galt?” the catch cry of “Atlas Shrugged” is now reflected by hosts of folk (from the wealthy to the poor) who see a more resource constrained future and look to opt out as either “preppers” or people with alternative lifestyles.

Soon we will have artificial intelligence and automated robots within the mainstream.  This means fewer human jobs and more comfort and leisure for those with money to spend.  Nationalism and Protectionism are looking almost inevitable and our leaders have not sought alternative strategies to globalisation and free trade.

Australia and New Zealand were established as part of the first 18/19th century globalisation drive and our economic models are based on the export of food and resources.  If the anti-globalisation forces erect trade hurdles for us, what then is our strategy?


 The next round of political upheavals is the Italian referendum in early December.  But meanwhile President Hollande and Chancelor Merkel must be worried about their tenure from 2017.  Frankly, I believe they deserve the Trump treatment after inundating their respective countries with a tide of Muslim immigrants, who arguably never intended to merge with the existing, mainly secular society.  I tend to agree with Doug Casey, below….

This video of the streets of Paris shows some of the “refugee’s”  impact…how much damage is that doing to the “City of Love” and who wants to go there to see the sights?

Populism …people power …. is spreading….

I think the inability of people like Obama to understand why globalisation has failed many people and why it will just get worse, means that few of America’s allies will try to change course.  The fundamental issue, that we cannot have continued exponential growth in a finite world, is simply not accepted and probably not understood.

In the present, many younger economists are concerned about the impact of baby boomers’ welfare on OECD economies.  But they have failed to realise that boomers are now far less numerous as a discrete class than “millennials” …those folk who reached adulthood after the year 2000.  Boomers are now as economically irrelevant as their/our own post-WW2 parents were in the 1990’s.  Each successive generation is exponentially larger than that which went before.  In terms of wealth generation for humans that seems OK until we factor in limits to growth in a finite world.

Much of the present media attention is about Trump and is now about who he will choose for his cabinet…not the collective impact of the new policies he brings with him…

Regardless of whatever The Donald does, his family will seemingly be an endless source of delight for the media…

 The Economy

 Trump is already having an economic impact on America’s neighbours…from Seeking Alpha…

Mexico’s central bank hiked interest rates to their highest in over seven years on Thursday and warned that the election of Donald Trump had cast doubt on the direction of Latin America’s second-largest economy. The decision to raise its key rate by 50 bps to 5.25% “seeks to counteract inflationary pressures,” Banxico said in a statement, adding that it stood ready to take further action if needed.

Amid fears a Trump administration will tear up NAFTA, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters group is lobbying the government to protect the U.S.-Canada trade relationship, even if that means losing the trilateral partnership with Mexico. As a result, Mexican and Canadian leaders will hold talks this weekend on the potential impacts Trump could have on the free trade agreement.

Meanwhile, leaders of Pacific Rim nations are gathering in Peru to salvage hopes for regional trade as prospects dwindle for the U.S-led Trans-Pacific Partnership. Discussions at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit will be dominated by fears of rising anti-globalization sentiment in the West and China’s burgeoning role in global trade. “

This interview below with Jim Rickards provides and excellent summary of how the issues facing President-elect Trump are so strikingly different from those that faced Ronald Reagan.

If the system freezes in the way Jim predicts, you will likely lose all access to your bank accounts while a bank holiday occurs.

Remember my personal reaction?  Hold enough bank notes under your mattress (or wherever) to last out a two month bank holiday.  Prepare to lose some of your bank deposits over a certain minimum sum (that will only be known when the “balloon goes up” – but probably less than $200,000) that will become part of the bank’s share capital.  Hold some low denomination precious metal coins in case inflation become hyper-inflation.  And hold non-financial assets to avoid share and property market crashes.

Warren Buffett doesn’t seem to be fazed by the Trump election…

Of course Buffett banks on the status quo.  There will also be numerous investment options that open up as things change.  Many of Buffett’s investments lie in globalised businesses…those multi-nationals that pay little or no tax anywhere and hold their huge multi-trillion cash deposits in offshore jurisdictions.  He is a beneficiary of everything global.

But already since the POTUS election, the global bond markets are swooning…



Janet Yellen looks like she will start the increases to interest rates in December – regardless of impact, but safe in the knowledge that Trump’s spending will counteract any small increases…and this won’t help the bond markets…

And some think we may depend on Trump to either spend or break all his election promises…

This of course affects the countries whose currencies compete in the zero sum exchange rate wars…

Meanwhile… The ECB seemingly keeps propping its economy up…from Seeking Alpha…

Mario Draghi has sent a strong signal that the ECB will extend its €1.7T bond purchase program next month, warning that the eurozone’s weak economy remains clouded by risks and heavily reliant on the central bank’s stimulus. “We cannot yet drop our guard,” he said at the European Banking Congress in Frankfurt. “The ECB will continue to act, as warranted, by using all the instruments available” until inflation picks up sustainably. “

And no-one has done anything to help Greece…from Seeking Alpha…

Greece is warning Germany and other creditors to agree on a debt restructuring in the coming weeks, or miss the best chance to bring its seven-year crisis to an end. “If we kick the can down the road and say we will decide in two years about how to make Greece’s debt sustainable, then investors will also postpone decisions about investing in Greece,” Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos declared. “

Nothing has changed in China…except that the Chinese have seemingly stopped increasing coal production/ consumption, and are assuring the rest of the world they are committed to a renewable energy future….

Emerging markets are being roiled by a shortage of US dollars to match market demand.  So it isn’t just in India where they have removed favoured bank notes from circulation that there is a looming cash shortage….how an injudicious move can wreck an economy:…


The accord within OPEC continues to be complicated as it isn’t just Iran that is holding out on limiting oil production…from Seeking Alpha…

Iraq would have to compensate international oil companies for limits placed on their production, according to industry sources, further reducing the prospect it will join any OPEC deal to curb the group’s output. A strengthening U.S. dollar is also weighing on prices. A stronger greenback makes oil, which is priced in dollars, more expensive to buyers in other currencies. Crude futures -1.5% to $44.72/bbl at time of writing. “

But OPEC is seemingly getting closer to a deal and today’s oil price reflects that optimism…

The Tesla-Solar City link up is a step into the future by Elon Musk.  The takeover has been approved and now people look to Tesla to usher in the age of solar power for home and transport…with solar roofs thrown in for good measure…

But is Elon over-reaching?  I think he is, but that remains to be seen.


Previous Better-Management Newsletters

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015

  • Better-Management Newsletter – 27 Feb 2015 – The new cold war heats up / Putin “…smacks of genocide” / “Cover their eyes, kick-the-can and hope..” / Historic alliances subordinate to US Presidential politics / Superannuation in the Antipodes
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 26 Feb 2015 – Greece: temporary reprieve / Ukraine stand-off / The implausible Fed / Cutback in drilling rigs / Obama stymies Keystone again / Restraints on militant Islam / When solar energy fails / How good are batteries? / Will new batteries succeed? / Zenn/EESU looks promising
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 23 Feb 2015 – All this money printing / Gold and silver / Threat from Russia / Winners had access to oil / Resource sustainability / Misleading resource estimates
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 22 Feb 2015 – Ukraine deteriorates / Remember past starvation of millions of Ukrainians / Russia breaches British air space / Greece: keep the party going / Democracy no longer exists in Europe / Potential to collapse the global financial system
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 19 Feb 2015 – Greek “Trojan Horse” / Ukraine rebels ‘disobey’ ceasefire / Has Putin miscalculated??
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 18 Feb 2015 – Dynamic equilibrium – Population growth/drop?  A new paradigm?  “Shale is not even remotely economically viable” – Extreme fluctuations stimulate extreme over-corrections
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 17 Feb 2015 – Business 101 for Germany.  The world hasn’t learnt either.  Middle East holy war.  The angst is peoples against peoples.  Hold the culpable people to account.  Has China hit the skids?  Peakists v. Cornucopians.  Low-hanging fruit/oil.  
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 16 February 2015 – $26 Trillion ‘game of chicken’.  Ukraine ceasefire??  There are signs of growth about.  A slowdown in demand.  Baltic Dry shipping index plummets.  “Money for nothing and chicks for free”. Our master resource…oil.  EIA have never got any forecast right.  Debt works very badly if the economy is contracting.
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 3 February 2015 – The Twin Tower trigger…. and the horrors it triggered.  The error of America’s ways.  BRICS and the SCO grow stronger.  A financial meltdown??  Natural Gas in the USA. Oil trend – up or down?  Bitcoin currency – what next? Zenn – a turning point?  What is happening in Russia?
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 1 February 2015  Oil price bottoming?  Culture of opting out.  Be nice to nerds.  Economists lost the plot.  Greece was bullied for aeons.  Substitute credit for real growth.  ‘Business as Usual’ RIP.  Where to from here?

January 2015

  • Better-Management Newsletter – 27 January 2015 – Greece mandate – for what?  Germany prepares.  Ex KGB Putin playing Good Cop?  Will Russia crash? Oil to stay below USD45/bbl?  Shale industry will be suspect.  How is Bitcoin travelling? An escape to the Antipodes?
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 25 January 2015 – Nothing useful has emerged from Davos.  Another liquidity crisis?  “Economists are stupid”.  Few scientists focus on energy storage.   Negative returns on new oil wells. Economists and bankers’ solutions: print money to goose GDP.  Politicians are pawns to big business?
  • Better-Management Newsletter – 23 January 2015 – Nanotechnology.  King Abdullah dead.  Super Mario’s QE.  Last throw of the EU dice?  Russia’s WW3 Game-plan -oil.  China’s Mr Li at Davos.  China’s central bank injects $8Bn
  • John’s Newsletter – 21 January 2015 – Swissie repercussions.  America’s own Berlin Wall collapsing.  Europe in trouble – the EU could soon be toast.  Gold still glisters. Oil – future in peril. Obama lying about oil. We need a new vision of the economy. After the big crash.  The realities of history.
  • John’s Newsletter – 18 January 2015 – Swiss Franc drama. Oil price to fall further? Shale oil Ponzi. Population growth – and green illogic.
  • John’s Newsletter – 17 January 2015 – Swiss Franc drama.  Oil price to fall further?  Shale oil Ponzi.  Population growth – and green illogic.
  • John’s Newsletter – 16 January 2015 – Oil (as usual).  China – a mixed bag.  Can technology save us?
  • John’s Newsletter – 15 January 2015 – Oil (as usual).  China – a mixed bag.  Can technology save us?
  • John’s Newsletter – 12 January 2015 – New GM EV.  Terrorism – not new. Turkey – formerly sectarian.  Oil prices and the financial markets.  Gold – limits to growth.  US stock markets – manipulated highs.
  • John’s Newsletter – 10 January 2015 – Electric car uptake accelerates. Je suis Hebden. EU’s unpayable debt – ditto China? Sri Lanka – new President. The Keystone fiasco.
  • John’s Newsletter – 8 January 2015 – Investment in 2015 – tricky.  EU: German deflation, Greek exit?  All stock markets peaked – except US.  China, Russia – odd bed-fellows.  Middle East powder keg.  Love Tesla.  Oil chaos, commodities slide.
  • John’s Newsletter – 6 January 2015 – 2014: growth tanking, falling currencies, irrational exuberance, ISIS and Ikhwani, the maths of oil, covert plans of the Saudis and US.
  • John’s Newsletter – 3 January 2015 – The climate change con. Justice, US-style. War criminals who led the US. Mario Draghi gets desperate. Government services shrink in line with income.
  • John’s Newsletter – 1 January 2015 – More ‘must-read’ books.  Escalation of the US/EU/OECD v BRICS/SEO differences.  Ominous oil prices defy rationale.
Posted in Better-Management Newsletter | Comments Off on Better-Management Newsletter

Another thought-provoking article brings you thought-provoking articles you may have missed on finance, economics, geopolitics, the environment, government and much more.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

Democracy trumps the victim generation

democracy-trumps-the-victim-generation  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 23 November 2016

Hip educators love to talk about so-called “teachable moments” that emerge from listening to and responding to the cues of children so that teaching relates to real-life events. It’s appropriate, then, that the infantile reactions to Donald Trump winning the US presidential election provide so many teachable moments. While it’s an open question whether those who have succumbed to puerile reactions are willing to learn anything about themselves, we can at least thank them for explaining, in the clearest of terms, why Trump won.

First, Trump’s win provides an unmistakeable teachable moment about a complacent generation’s waning commitment to democracy. In 2013, the Lowy Institute poll found that among people aged 18 to 29, fewer than half said democracy was preferable to any other kind of government. More than one-fifth of this young cohort said that it didn’t matter what kind of government we had. The same poll this year found that just 61 per cent of the population and 54 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds think “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government”.

Those dismal numbers sprang to life these past few weeks on the streets of New York, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and elsewhere when thousands of anti-Trump protesters showed their disdain for a democratic election result. Those city streets were full of those from a pampered generation who have rarely heard the word no. This is the safe-space, all-must-have-prizes, trigger-warning generation, the children of helicopter parents who have been taught they should be protected from what upsets them.

When the election didn’t go their way, they, like children, chose infantile tantrums over grown-up concession and respect for democracy. Their progressive tilt against democracy will only confirm to Trump supporters that they made the correct decision.

In New York last week, when vice-president-elect Mike Pence attended the blockbuster Broadway show Hamilton, many in the crowd booed him and the stage actors gathered to harangue him. Revealing contempt for or ignorance of their country’s history, including the subject of the Broadway show, the baying crowd and hectoring actors proved why Trump voters felt utterly disconnected from insider elites. After all, as one of America’s finest founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, told the New York State convention meeting to adopt the federal Constitution on July 27, 1788: “Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.”

Trump and Pence, not to mention the Republicans who will control both houses of congress, are the people’s democratically elected representatives.

In Australia, Roz Ward, the Marxist academic from La Trobe University, provided a living, breathing, berating insight into the Left’s hypocrisy. The woman who is responsible for the Safe Schools program in Victoria, embraced by Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews, took to the streets of Melbourne to protest against Trump and then physically harassed a man wearing a Trump hat. Ward exposed the fact she’s not interested in anti-bullying but instead is committed to the new fascism where dissent from her views is not tolerated.

Trump supporters are entitled to feel further validated in their choice when they remember how sections of the media hyperventilated over the prospect of Trump voters not accepting the election result if their candidate lost to Hillary Clinton.

It would be a serious undermining of democracy, the pundits said on CNN and elsewhere. In another teachable moment about hypocrisy, these same people haven’t raised an eyebrow over the thousands protesting against Trump’s victory.

Perhaps the most incisive teachable moment from Trump’s win is the propensity of the current generation to see themselves as hapless injured parties rather than resilient, robust individuals. The cues, even in Australia, tell the story: an after-school club at Newtown Public School in Sydney’s inner west received “art therapy” because they were upset over Trump’s win and were chanting “we hate Trump”.

It’s hard to imagine how children as young as five talk about killing Trump unless their parents have projected their own hate and outrage on to their kids. That parental irresponsibility is only compounded by introducing therapy to help five-year-olds deal with an election result. How will the kids cope when they fail a test or don’t make the netball team?

Then again, why wouldn’t a trendy inner-city school offer therapy for kids when one of Australia’s biggest accounting firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers, offers the same to its adult employees? Proving that the firm’s dodgy and highly political report in March about a gay marriage referendum was not peak stupidity, PwC boss Luke Sayers has launched his firm to new heights of absurdity. On November 10 Sayers sent a letter to PwC’s 7000 Australian employees offering them counselling in the wake of the US election result.

The sad learning from Sayers’s letter is that it confirms how the virtues of resilience and true grit have been relegated to the past, replaced by self-indulgence and victimhood. After all, November 8 marked a democratic election, not a terrorist attack. The rush to offer therapy for an election result signals why millions of ordinary Americans picked the politically incorrect Trump over Clinton. Here, writ large, was the democratic rejection of the cultural malaise that Sayers epitomises.

Make America great again? The starting point ought to be making America tough again. And we could aim to do the same in Australia. A few hundred years ago, colonial pioneers forged a new home in a daunting but beautiful country. Less than 100 years ago, postwar migrants sought out a new and free country, laboured through a Depression to build lives for their families. A few generations ago, resilient young men went to war to fight against Nazi Germany.

Now, a pampered generation of men and women, many of whom don’t have much regard for democracy, seek out therapy for themselves and their children when an election result doesn’t go their way. Few things mark the worst of modernity as clearly as this rush among highly educated professionals to be victims of a democratic election on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

Sayers has done nothing to show real compassion or care for his employees. If he wasn’t a laughing-stock after his firm’s intervention into the gay marriage debate, he surely is now. But, then again, maybe he’s auditioning to be the new boss of the Australian Human Rights Commission, a body devoted to turning those who are easily offended into victims.

Inevitably, life throws up the occasional loss, a curly challenge, a disappointing failure. If we embrace victimhood and the concomitant bastardisation of “therapy” as the means to deal with an election result, what hope do we have of dealing with the big stuff?

The other teachable moment from Trump’s win is that even an ocean away from the US, people who are horrified by the soft and sappy underbelly of modernity will feel more emboldened to confront and reject those people, institutions and political parties that fail to understand that resilience, not victimhood and therapy sessions, turned a handful of small British colonies into a great nation.

First, Trump’s win provides an unmistakeable teachable moment about a complacent generation’s waning commitment to democracy. In 2013, the Lowy Institute poll found that among people aged 18 to 29, fewer than half said democracy was preferable to any other kind of government. More than one-fifth of this young cohort said that it didn’t matter what kind of government we had. The same poll this year found that just 61 per cent of the population and 54 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds think “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government”.

Those dismal numbers sprang to life these past few weeks on the streets of New York, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and elsewhere when thousands of anti-Trump protesters showed their disdain for a democratic election result. Those city streets were full of those from a pampered generation who have rarely heard the word no. This is the safe-space, all-must-have-prizes, trigger-warning generation, the children of helicopter parents who have been taught they should be protected from what upsets them.

When the election didn’t go their way, they, like children, chose infantile tantrums over grown-up concession and respect for democracy. Their progressive tilt against democracy will only confirm to Trump supporters that they made the correct decision.

In New York last week, when vice-president-elect Mike Pence attended the blockbuster Broadway show Hamilton, many in the crowd booed him and the stage actors gathered to harangue him. Revealing contempt for or ignorance of their country’s history, including the subject of the Broadway show, the baying crowd and hectoring actors proved why Trump voters felt utterly disconnected from insider elites. After all, as one of America’s finest founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, told the New York State convention meeting to adopt the federal Constitution on July 27, 1788: “Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.”

Trump and Pence, not to mention the Republicans who will control both houses of congress, are the people’s democratically elected representatives.

In Australia, Roz Ward, the Marxist academic from La Trobe University, provided a living, breathing, berating insight into the Left’s hypocrisy. The woman who is responsible for the Safe Schools program in Victoria, embraced by Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews, took to the streets of Melbourne to protest against Trump and then physically harassed a man wearing a Trump hat. Ward exposed the fact she’s not interested in anti-bullying but instead is committed to the new fascism where dissent from her views is not tolerated.

Trump supporters are entitled to feel further validated in their choice when they remember how sections of the media hyperventilated over the prospect of Trump voters not accepting the election result if their candidate lost to Hillary Clinton.

It would be a serious undermining of democracy, the pundits said on CNN and elsewhere. In another teachable moment about hypocrisy, these same people haven’t raised an eyebrow over the thousands protesting against Trump’s victory.

Perhaps the most incisive teachable moment from Trump’s win is the propensity of the current generation to see themselves as hapless injured parties rather than resilient, robust individuals. The cues, even in Australia, tell the story: an after-school club at Newtown Public School in Sydney’s inner west received “art therapy” because they were upset over Trump’s win and were chanting “we hate Trump”.

It’s hard to imagine how children as young as five talk about killing Trump unless their parents have projected their own hate and outrage on to their kids. That parental irresponsibility is only compounded by introducing therapy to help five-year-olds deal with an election result. How will the kids cope when they fail a test or don’t make the netball team?

Then again, why wouldn’t a trendy inner-city school offer therapy for kids when one of Australia’s biggest accounting firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers, offers the same to its adult employees? Proving that the firm’s dodgy and highly political report in March about a gay marriage referendum was not peak stupidity, PwC boss Luke Sayers has launched his firm to new heights of absurdity. On November 10 Sayers sent a letter to PwC’s 7000 Australian employees offering them counselling in the wake of the US election result.

The sad learning from Sayers’s letter is that it confirms how the virtues of resilience and true grit have been relegated to the past, replaced by self-indulgence and victimhood. After all, November 8 marked a democratic election, not a terrorist attack. The rush to offer therapy for an election result signals why millions of ordinary Americans picked the politically incorrect Trump over Clinton. Here, writ large, was the democratic rejection of the cultural malaise that Sayers epitomises.

Make America great again? The starting point ought to be making America tough again. And we could aim to do the same in Australia. A few hundred years ago, colonial pioneers forged a new home in a daunting but beautiful country. Less than 100 years ago, postwar migrants sought out a new and free country, laboured through a Depression to build lives for their families. A few generations ago, resilient young men went to war to fight against Nazi Germany.

Now, a pampered generation of men and women, many of whom don’t have much regard for democracy, seek out therapy for themselves and their children when an election result doesn’t go their way. Few things mark the worst of modernity as clearly as this rush among highly educated professionals to be victims of a democratic election on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

Sayers has done nothing to show real compassion or care for his employees. If he wasn’t a laughing-stock after his firm’s intervention into the gay marriage debate, he surely is now. But, then again, maybe he’s auditioning to be the new boss of the Australian Human Rights Commission, a body devoted to turning those who are easily offended into victims.

Inevitably, life throws up the occasional loss, a curly challenge, a disappointing failure. If we embrace victimhood and the concomitant bastardisation of “therapy” as the means to deal with an election result, what hope do we have of dealing with the big stuff?

The other teachable moment from Trump’s win is that even an ocean away from the US, people who are horrified by the soft and sappy underbelly of modernity will feel more emboldened to confront and reject those people, institutions and political parties that fail to understand that resilience, not victimhood and therapy sessions, turned a handful of small British colonies into a great nation.


“We The People” Against Tyranny: Seven Principles For Free Government

we-the-people-against-tyranny-seven-principles-for-free-government By John Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute, 9 November 2016

“As I look at America today, I am not afraid to say that I am afraid.”—Former presidential advisor Bertram Gross

As history teaches us, if the people have little or no knowledge of the basics of government and their rights, those who wield governmental power inevitably wield it excessively. After all, a citizenry can only hold its government accountable if it knows when the government oversteps its bounds.

Precisely because Americans are easily distracted—because, as study after study shows, they are clueless about their rights—because their elected officials no longer represent them—because Americans have been brainwashed into believing that their only duty as citizens is to vote—because the citizenry has failed to hold government officials accountable to abiding by the Constitution—because young people are no longer being taught the fundamentals of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, resulting in citizens who don’t even know they have rights—and because Americans continue to place their trust in politics to fix what’s wrong with this country—the American governmental scheme is sliding ever closer towards a pervasive authoritarianism.

This steady slide towards tyranny, meted out by militarized local and federal police and legalistic bureaucrats, has been carried forward by each successive president over the past fifty years regardless of their political affiliation.

Big government has grown bigger and the rights of the citizenry have grown smaller.

However, there are certain principles—principles that every American should know—which undergird the American system of government and form the basis for the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for.

The following seven principles are a good starting point for understanding what free government is really all about.

First, the maxim that power corrupts is an absolute truth. Realizing this, those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights held one principle sacrosanct: a distrust of all who hold governmental power. As James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, proclaimed, “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” Moreover, in questions of power, Thomas Jefferson warned, “Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” As such, those who drafted our founding documents would see today’s government as an out-of-control, unmanageable beast.

The second principle is that governments primarily exist to secure rights, an idea that is central to constitutionalism. In appointing the government as the guardian of the people’s rights, the people give it only certain, enumerated powers, which are laid out in a written constitution. The idea of a written constitution actualizes the two great themes of the Declaration of Independence: consent and protection of equal rights. Thus, the purpose of constitutionalism is to limit governmental power and ensure that the government performs its basic function: to preserve and protect our rights, especially our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the government today has discarded this principle and now sees itself as our master, not our servant. The obvious next step, unless we act soon, is tyranny.

The third principle revolves around the belief that no one is above the law, not even those who make the law. This is termed rule of law. Richard Nixon’s statement, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal,” would have been an anathema to the Framers of the Constitution. If all people possess equal rights, the people who live under the laws must be allowed to participate in making those laws. By that same token, those who make the laws must live under the laws they make. However, today government officials at all levels often act as if they are royalty with salaries and perks that none of the rest of us are afforded. This is an egregious affront to the citizenry.

Fourth, separation of powers ensures that no single authority is entrusted with all the powers of government. People are not perfect, whether they are in government or out of it. As history makes clear, those in power tend to abuse it. The government is thus divided into three co-equal branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Placing all three powers in the same branch of government was considered the very definition of tyranny. The fact that the president today has dictatorial powers would have been considered a curse by the Framers.

Fifth, a system of checks and balances, essential if a constitutional government is to succeed, strengthens the separation of powers and prevents legislative despotism. Such checks and balances include dividing Congress into two houses, with different constituencies, term lengths, sizes and functions; granting the president a limited veto power over congressional legislation; and appointing an independent judiciary capable of reviewing ordinary legislation in light of the written Constitution, which is referred to as “judicial review.” The Framers feared that Congress could abuse its powers and potentially emerge as the tyrannous branch because it had the power to tax. But they did not anticipate the emergence of presidential powers as they have come to dominate modern government or the inordinate influence of corporate powers on governmental decision-making. Indeed, as recent academic studies now indicate, we are now ruled by a monied oligarchy that serves itself and not “we the people.”

Sixth, representation allows the people to have a voice in government by sending elected representatives to do their bidding while avoiding the need of each and every citizen to vote on every issue considered by government. In a country as large as the United States, it is not feasible to have direct participation in governmental affairs. Hence, we have a representative government. If the people don’t agree with how their representatives are conducting themselves, they can and should vote them out. However, as the citizenry has grown lazy and been distracted by the entertainment spectacles of modern society, government bureaucrats churn out numerous laws each year resulting in average citizens being rendered lawbreakers and jailed for what used to be considered normal behavior.

Finally, federalism is yet another constitutional device to limit the power of government by dividing power and, thus, preventing tyranny. In America, the levels of government generally break down into federal, state and local branches (which further divide into counties and towns or cities). Because local and particular interests differ from place to place, such interests are better handled at a more intimate level by local governments, not a bureaucratic national government. Remarking on the benefits of the American tradition of local self-government in the 1830s, the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed: “Local institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they put it within the people’s reach; they teach people to appreciate its peaceful enjoyment and accustom them to make use of it. Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty.” Unfortunately, we are now governed by top-heavy government emanating from Washington DC that has no respect for local institutions or traditions.

These seven vital principles have been largely forgotten in recent years, obscured by the haze of a centralized government, a citizenry that no longer thinks analytically, and schools that don’t adequately teach our young people about their history and their rights.

Yet here’s the rub: while Americans wander about in their brainwashed states, their “government of the people, by the people and for the people” has largely been taken away from them.

The answer: get un-brainwashed.

Learn your rights.

Stand up for the founding principles.

Make your voice and your vote count for more than just political posturing.

Never cease to vociferously protest the erosion of your freedoms at the local and national level.

Most of all, do these things today.

If we wait until the votes have all been counted or hang our hopes on our particular candidate to win and fix what’s wrong with the country, “we the people” will continue to lose.

Whether we ever realize it not, the enemy is not across party lines, as they would have us believe. It has us surrounded on all sides.

Even so, we’re not yet defeated.

We could still overcome our oppressors if we cared enough to join forces and launch a militant nonviolent revolution—a people’s revolution that starts locally and trickles upwards—but that will take some doing.

It will mean turning our backs on the political jousting contests taking place at all levels of government and rejecting their appointed jesters as false prophets. It will mean not allowing ourselves to be corralled like cattle and branded with political labels that have no meaning anymore. It will mean recognizing that all the evils that surround us today—endless wars, drone strikes, invasive surveillance, militarized police, poverty, asset forfeiture schemes, overcriminalization, etc.—are not of our making but came about as a way to control and profit from us.

It will mean “voting with our feet” through sustained, mass civil disobedience.

As journalist Chris Hedges points out, “There were once radicals in America, people who held fast to moral imperatives. They fought for the oppressed because it was right, not because it was easy or practical. They were willing to accept the state persecution that comes with open defiance. They had the courage of their convictions. They were not afraid.”

Ultimately, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peopleit will mean refusing to be divided, one against each other, by politics and instead uniting behind the only distinction that has ever mattered: “we the people” against tyranny.


cp-editorial-031116 Kiwis hold key for prosperity, by Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 3 October 2016

“Yes, it hurts Aussie pride to admit the Kiwis are better than us, but let’s pot be too proud to steal ideas that have been proven to work”.



Previous articles

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015

January 2015

December 2014

November 2014

October 2014

September 2014

July 2014

June 2014

May 2014

April 2014

Posted in Must-Read Articles | Comments Off on Another thought-provoking article

Environmentalism: too many gravy trains and hidden agendas

The modern environmental, or ‘green’, movement has shifted from overt care for the environment towards activist and economic damage, self-serving agendas and covert promotion of more sinister agendas.  But their opposition grows by the day as evidence and  common sense starts to prevail.   

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

Derailing the Marrakech Express

 derailing-the-marrakech-express  By Michael Kile, Quadrant Online, 20 November 2016

Last week’s collision between the Trump Train and Marrakech Express should slow down – maybe even derail – the UN’s relentless two-decade climate scare campaign. 

Another positive in the ascension of Donald Trump is the gloom his impending presidency has cast over the jet-setting catastropharians gathered to promote dire visions of the planet’s future and, of course, their careers, budgets and computer-modelled fabulism.

All aboard the United Nations “last chance” gravy train, COP22. Hurry, you hippies, hucksters and hallucinogenic fellow travellers, hurry. Be quick, if you want a free ride on the Marrakech Express.

Hallucinogen: A drug that causes profound distortions in a person’s perceptions of reality. People often see images, hear sounds, and feel sensations that seem real but do not exist. Some hallucinogens produce rapid and intense emotional swings, as seen last week in certain cohorts in North America, especially after passage (56 to 44 percent) of California Proposition 64 legalising adult use of recreational marijuana in that state.

Could there be a more appropriate location than this exotic Moroccan city — immortalised by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young in the 1960s — to celebrate the global ambitions of the UN’s Climate Caliphate? The intention is surely noble: two weeks getting high on self-congratulation, other people’s money, junk science and the eco-worrier’s favourite over-the-counter drug, DAGW (dangerous anthropogenic global warming), now rebranded as DACC (dangerous anthropogenic climate change) to entrench public credulity.

Climate-caliphate: 1. Entity led by a climate-caliph, generally an eco-zealot, ex-politician or career bureaucrat turned climate-control propagandist. 2. Global climate-caliphate: theocratic one-world government or de facto government. 3. Any ideology or aspiration promoted by a militant fossil fuel free sect, or ‘champion of the Earth’, such as UNEP. 4. Any radical group intending to behead, disembowel, or otherwise degrade Western economies with the two-edged sword of wealth redistribution (aka ‘climate reparations’) and ‘decarbonisation’, while reciting mantras about sustainability, slow-onset events and saving the planet. Also known as Agenda 21.

Last week’s unscheduled arrival of the US Great Again train has, however, upset the Programme. It was arguably a black swan event–  “the biggest FU in human history”, according to Michael Moore (video here).

As the news reverberated around the world, the climate establishment was shocked to discover that not all swans are white and female. So perhaps it also could be the case that not all “extreme weather events”, or global temperature fluctuations, have much to do with a few hundred parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, if anything.

For many COP22 delegates, the clock of catastrophe suddenly shifted much closer to midnight. “A third of the people here are walking around like zombies, like the walking dead, not sure what to do,” said UC Berkeley Professor Daniel Kammen, speaking from Morocco. Many believe the honeymoon is over.

Shock and disbelief marked Bab Ighli, the venue of the UN-sponsored climate meet. Even as delegates sought to retain an air of normalcy virtually every conversation turned to Trump, and what the elevation of a climate denier to the White House meant for the global efforts to tackle climate change. (GWPF)

That sound you can hear is not only the gnashing of teeth and blowing of pot-smoke. It is also the scurrying hither and thither of thousands of bureaucrats in a race against time. They are on an earnest mission to capture the chaos and complexity of the planet’s climate in a net of jargon so opaque it will bamboozle even the most erudite disciple of truth and transparency.

UNFCCC’s language is designed to give an appearance of solidity to nebulous “climate change”. But in a way that is bound to ensure the West is liable for all “loss and damage” – yet undefined – from any meteorological event that disrupts life in the developing world.

A recent addition to the UN’s Orwellian climate lexicon is the “slow-onset event”. It is bound to be useful to those involved with COP19’s Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts; “the main vehicle under the Convention to promote the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner.”

Meanwhile, spare a thought for Senator John Kerry, one of the architects of last year’s Paris Agreement, as he tries to salvage something from the wreckage. With the political ground shifting under him, Kerry appeared – not in Marrakech but – tweeting from Antarctica, presumably a welcome change from the heat in Washington.

Here in #Antarctica w/ some of the world’s top researchers. The science is clear: #climatechange is real, and we ignore it at our own peril. (November 13, 2016)

Climate change directly impacts everyone across all seven continents. We all must do our part to #ActOnClimate.” (November 11, 2016)

Headed to #Antarctica to see firsthand some of the drastic effects of #climatechange. Many thanks to @NSF for making this trip possible. (November 10, 2016)

Today the #ParisAgreement goes into effect. Proud of this step taken by the int’l community & energized to keep up work on #climatechange. (November 4, 2016)

For those who came in late, the UN is chasing climate-dollars through two channels, the Korean-based UNFCCC Green Climate Fund and Nairobi-based UNEP. With regard to the former, as Tony Thomas explained last week here:

Trump has pledged not only to rip up the Paris deal, but to withdraw all US climate funding to the UN. The UN climate fund is supposed to build to $100b a year for Third World mendicants. Obama has given $500m so far and pledged $3 billion to the UN Green Climate Fund, but Trump will divert those billions to domestic environmental projects such as the Florida Everglades.

The sheer scale of UNEP’s ambition and activities are even more significant, as I explained here. In the weird world of  environmental politics, the UN sees no conflict of interest in one powerful body and its agencies being responsible for collecting data, concocting ‘projections’ and ‘storylines’ and developing policy; while simultaneously funding and encouraging advocacy groups to pressure governments to design or modify renewable energy (RE) and carbon-pricing regulations in its favour. Why not? Well, the ultimate beneficiaries, surely, are humankind and the planet – not huge ticket-clipping pension funds (some with significant RE sector exposure) and career climate-bureaucrats.

Perhaps it is just as well an entity that claims to have the power to induce a global Goldilocks climate and manipulate the planet’s thermostat is protected by legal immunity under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations; especially if its ‘best available science’ cannot make genuine predictions.

The UN’s latest initiatives are instructive in this context. On October 7 this year, Bank of Mexico Governor, Agustín Carstens, and UNFCCC Chief, Patricia Espinosa, posted an editorial in the agency’s Climate Change Newsroom: “Paris will soon enter into force, now we need to move the money.” Some of the US$90 trillion they want to move by 2030 could be from your pension fund.

The cost of making the transition to a low-carbon future is measured in trillions. This quickly takes us far beyond the realm of public funds since no government – no matter how rich – can finance climate action through taxation and borrowing alone. One estimate suggests that around US $90 trillion will need to be invested by 2030 in infrastructure, agriculture and energy systems, to accomplish the Paris Agreement.

This won’t happen without private capital and underlines why aligning the world’s financial system with the needs of climate action and sustainable development is every bit as important as emission reduction pathways and removing fossil fuel subsidies. Moreover, set against the US$300 trillion of assets – held by banks, the capital markets and institutional investors – we’re faced with a problem of allocation rather than outright scarcity.

As for UNEP, it just released its annual “emissions gap” report at COP22. Comparing the goals of Paris 2015 to signatory pledges, it uses all the alarmist rhetoric one would expect from an agency that is the 43-year-old brainchild of the late Maurice Strong. Unless reductions in “carbon pollution from the energy sector are reduced swiftly and steeply”, UNEP claims that it will be nearly impossible to keep warming below 2 degrees, let alone to the 1.5 degree aspiration.

According to UNEP the need for urgent, immediate action to confront the “climate crisis” is “indisputable.” And yes, you guessed it. We are all drinking in the Last Chance Saloon.

It is likely the last chance to keep the option of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C in 2100 open, as all available scenarios consistent with the 1.5 degree C goal imply that global greenhouse gases peak before 2020.

As to the source of UNEP’s 2-degree threshold, it remains a mystery, at least to me. Is it a best-guess algorithm from a flawed computer model, or the emphatic conclusion of a new law of nature? Perhaps that is why more and more climate scientists seem to be emoting like tearful Cassandras. Alternatively, they may be merely desperate to be acknowledged as champions of the earth too. Expressing one’s feelings about the future in public, however, does not in any way validate DAGW or DACC. Anyway, folk in northern Russia would welcome some extra warmth right now.

Last week’s collision between the Trump Train and Marrakech Express should slow down – maybe even derail – the UN’s relentless two-decade climate scare campaign. If it does the latter, there may not be enough hens on the planet to lay all the eggs required to go on the faces of all the folk who promulgated this narrative with such sanctimonious certainty.

Perhaps there is a god or goddess after all. If so, one of His or Her ninety-nine names just might be – if not Veritas, then – Serpens Oleum. Let us pray.


Finally, Warmists Find a Real Threat

finally-warmists-find-a-real-threat  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 15 November 2016

 Whatever else he does, President-elect Donald Trump can be counted on to shoo those green snouts out of the climate-scare trough — first by repealing Obama’s executive orders, then by re-directing from the UN to domestic environmental concerns. It’s a beautiful thing

“I’m feeling very flat today,” snuffled Amanda McKenzie, CEO of Tim Flannery’s crowd-funded Climate Council.  As she should, given that President-elect Trump will end the trillion-dollar renewable-energy scam so beloved by the council.

McKenzie continues, “Progress on climate change can feel hopeless and it’s tempting to give up and turn away.” But instead, she rattles the tin for donations of $10 a month “to allow us to undertake some massive projects next year that will power communities and everyday Australians to spearhead our renewable energy transition.” Good luck with that, Amanda.

Throughout the Western world, green lobbies are likewise oscillating between despair and self-delusion over the Trump election.

Trump’s agenda – as per his election website –  includes

  • Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.
  • Declare American energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States.
  • Become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.
  • Rescind all job-destroying Obama executive actions.
  • Reduce and eliminate all barriers to responsible energy production, creating at least a half million jobs a year, $30 billion in higher wages, and cheaper energy.

Trump says Obama’s onslaught of regulations has been a massive self-inflicted economic wound denying Americans access to the energy wealth sitting under their feet: “This is the American People’s treasure, and they are entitled to share in the riches.” More than that, the president-elect’s common-sense policies make the 20,000 climate careerists and activists in Marrakech, led by Vice-President John Kerry, seem comically irrelevant. They were supposed to be implementing the feeble Paris climate accord – notwithstanding that China has just announced a 19% expansion of coal capacity over the next five years.

But with the US leadership no longer concerned about climate doom, the rationale for these annual talk-fests (22 to date) has evaporated. Robert McNally, energy consultant and former George W. Bush adviser, says climate change policy “is going to come to a screeching halt. The Paris Agreement from a U.S. perspective is a dead agreement walking.”

The agreement now has only the EU’s backing in terms of actual and significant cuts to emissions, although Australia is also now pledging to do its tiny bit for foot-shooting insanity. The EU’s continued subsidies to renewables will merely worsen its competitiveness vis a vis the new energy powerhouse across the Atlantic.

Trump has pledged not only to rip up the Paris deal, but to withdraw all US climate funding to the UN. The UN climate fund is supposed to build to $100b a year for Third World mendicants. Obama has given $500m so far and pledged $3 billion to the UN climate fund, but Trump will divert those billions to domestic environmental projects such as the Florida Everglades. As he told supporters, “We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars. We don’t even know who’s doing what with the money.”

Obama, unable to get his climate legislation through the Republican-controlled Congress, used regulatory powers instead to get the job done. Trump can now neutralize those efforts simply by reversal or non-enforcement of the regulations.

One of the climate war’s best-kept secrets is that there is no real constituency for renewables, other than vested interests and noisy green groups. That’s why both candidates gave global warming so little prominence in the campaign. Nearly a third of Americans think the global warming scare is a total hoax.

It’s a similar story internationally: a UN annual poll last month (9.7m respondents) had “action on climate change” rating dead last among 16 issues, with top ratings going to education, health care and jobs. Even people from the richest nations rated climate action only 10th. The poll in 2015 got the same result.

Trump’s personal view on climate-change science  is that  CO2 is probably causing some warming but the scare is vastly exaggerated. He will therefore reverse Obama’s assault on the coal and coal-fired power sectors and give them a better chance to compete with natural gas.

Trump’s choice of key climate advisers is a nightmare for the warmist establishment. To transition the US Environmental Protection Agency from climate activism, he’s picked outspoken skeptic Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy & Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. The CEI is equivalent to Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs.

Ebell laughs at his leftist critics and cites to congress his Greenpeace listing as a leading “climate criminal”.  He thinks warming will not be a problem for one or two centuries; meanwhile we should expand access to all types of energy – on an unsubsidized basis.

Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball told a Melbourne seminar this week that Trump is getting science advice from satellite meteorologist Dr Roy Spencer. Spencer’s data has demonstrated that orthodox climate models have exaggerated actual warming by a factor of two to three. His own readings from satellites showed no significant warming for the 21 years up to the 2015-16 El Nino spike. He emphasises the vast uncertainties about climate forecasting and the still-unknown roles of natural forces.

Spencer, who holds a NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring, believes  the near-universal funding of climate research by governments causes a bias towards catastrophic forecasting, since governments won’t fund non-problems. He wants funding to be at arm’s length from political interests. For the Department of Energy, Trump has picked energy lobbyist Mike McKenna, with ties to the industry-backed American Energy Alliance and Institute for Energy Research.

Trump’s election is rocking the climate-scare industry to its foundations. Four decades of madness is coming to an end.

Tony Thomas’s book of essays, That’s Debatable – 60 Years in Print, is available here


Going cold on climate science



Links to previous articles


Posted in Environmental battles | 1 Comment

Elitists, PC/progressivists and left-leaning media threaten democracy

PC, the acronym for ‘politically correct’ is a tool of self-elected elitists and ‘progressives’.  It is insidiously insinuating their program of nanny-state control, welfare, collectivism, bureaucracy and even Marxism on an unsuspecting population.

Scroll down to the bottom for more articles.

Gloriously Unhinged by President Trump

gloriously-unhinged-by-president-trump  By Daryl McCann, Quadrant Online, 20 November 2016

Escaping the soft-totalitarianism of our PC jail

When a fabulously wealthy entertainer claims victimhood purely on the strength of her skin’s melanin content and a very shady lady extols XX chromosomes as a prime qualifier for the White House, PC orthodoxy needed a good kicking. The incoming president just administered one.

In the July, 2016, edition of Quadrant I agreed with the notion that for many Americans their country now felt like an express train speeding toward the abyss. Donald J. Trump was the fellow bold enough to propose pushing the Emergency Stop button in a carriage full of frightened and cowed passengers. Trump was the anti-PC candidate in a nation ruled over by a P.C. Establishment.

The concept of Political Correctness is something weightier than mere annoyance or absurdity. It is the ideology of a Left Power Elite (LPE) – to echo sociologist C. Wright Mills’ 1956 critique of the United States – and has long held sway over the American people. The LPE itself is a caste of notable families, CEOs, celebrities, mainstream media operators, state mandarins, “progressive” lobby groups, academics, key members of the federal government and so on. PC ideology reflects the worldview and self-interest of members of the LPE and also serves to obscure or disguise their positions of advantage relative to ordinary people (or “the deplorables” as Hillary Clinton would say).

The 2016 US election cycle exposed the LPE as never before. The case of the pop music celebrity Beyoncé might seem trivial and yet it is far from that. During the 2016 NFL Super Bowl halftime show, for instance, the 36-year-old African-American singer-songwriter celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party. Beyoncé, perhaps the highest profile celebrity – amongst a plethora of high profile celebrities – to lend their glamour to the Clinton campaign, later claimed her halftime show had not been “political” (and against NFL guidelines) but instead “cultural”. In a year that would see the rise and rise of the Malcolm X-inspired Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, not to mention the New Black Panther Party, Beyoncé’s rationalisation should be considered disingenuous at best.

Hillary Clinton and Beyoncé share more than an antipathy to Donald Trump. PC Identarianism allows Beyoncé, one of the more dazzling and venerated celebrities on the planet, to play the victim card. This no-expense-spared woman, who inhabits the rarefied air of global superstardom, might have been listed by Time magazine in 2013 and 2014 as one of the most influential women in the world and by Forbes in 2015 as the most powerful female in entertainment, she might even possess a net wealth of as much as $US450 million, and yet Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter self-identifies as a victim. The melanin in her skin allows this revered idol to pose as a member of the modern-day Left’s rainbow of discontents. It is not so much a matter of “white skin privilege” holding Beyoncé back as “black skin privilege” shielding her from accusations of extreme privilege.

The story of Hillary Clinton is a parallel one. She, too, enjoys a privileged life. Politics and public life have been rewarding – in every sense of that word – for Hillary and Bill Clinton. Public financial disclosure reports put her net worth at $31.3 million and Bill’s at $80 million, not bad for a couple in serious debt at the conclusion of their time in White House. Much of that debt, we should mention, was the cost of the legal team – organised by Hillary – to keep Bill at arm’s length from the law during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the latter stages of his presidency. Hillary Clinton was subsequently rewarded with a seat in the Senate (2001-09) and the role of secretary of state in the Obama administration (2009-03).

According to WikiLeaks, the DNC subsequently colluded with the Clinton campaign to undermine Democratic rival Bernie Sander and ensure that Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential candidate, after failing to secure it in 2008 when inexperienced Congressman Barack Obama outmanoeuvred her with his version of identity politics. Undeterred, Hillary Clinton pushed her take on PC rectitude to the forefront of the 2015-16 campaign. Jillian Gutowitz, writing for the Huffington Post in December, 2015, summed it up perfectly with this line: “I’m voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman.” Beyoncé, an Obama campaigner in 2008 and 2012 and now, in 2016, spruiking for Hillary Clinton, encapsulated the twenty-first century PC Identarianism of the Democratic Party with these four words: “Let’s make history again!”

From a progressive point-of-view, at least, Clinton’s failure to “make history” might be explained in terms of sexism. If Hillary Clinton had been a man – or so the logic goes – she would have won the election. The fact she lost, in this Alice-in-Wonderland narrative, is proof that America remains a sexist nation in the grip of the omnipresent patriarchy. For this to possess any meaningful explanatory power requires discounting all the other aspects of Hillary Clinton’s character, not the least being her non-record as New York senator, catastrophic decisions as secretary of state, Emailgate, the accusations of corruption in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash (2015) and the evidence of systematic duplicity as revealed by WikiLeaks in the months leading up to Decision Day on November 8. Hillary Clinton’s gender, in other words, ought to have erased from the mind of the American voter her deeply problematic candidature.

And here we arrive at the civilisation-destroying aspect of PC ideology. Martin Luther King put the case for liberal empathy as well as anyone: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” PC dogma subtly – but with critical consequences – altered King’s enlightened humanist creed into judging people not in spite of their colour, gender, religion, ethnicity and sexual preference but because of their colour, gender, religion, ethnicity and sexual preference. This successfully served as the redemptive aspect of Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and the not so successful legitimising feature of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 ill-fated quest. Voting for a candidate on the basis of colour or gender is what Beyoncé would call “making history”. Should we be surprised, then, that she chose the most public space possible to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party?

After all, PC ideology is the radicalism of the 1960’s New Left reconfigured as progressive politics for our new millennium. The most effective agent in its resurgence has been the presidency of Barack Obama. Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-in-Chief (2008) was one of the investigative works to warn of Obama’s radical roots in the lead up to the 2008 election. Few listened. It seemed impolite to question the agenda of an African-American candidate who had come to heal America and not divide it – even though the 44th President has made an art form of promoting racial haters, such as BLM. For an African-American to support the GOP, let alone Donald Trump, is to risk the condemnation of the Thought Police and stand accused of being an identity traitor. Nonetheless, a post-election report in the New York Times appears to suggest that an increased number (relative to 2012) of African-Americans – as well as Hispanics, women and the poor – liberated themselves from the constraints of political correctness to vote for Donald J. Trump. Deplorables, apparently, are not just white and male but come in all shapes, sizes – and colours.

PC rectitude not only stipulates how designated victim groups should think and vote, it also cordons off from serious outside scrutiny the leadership of those same groups. The most notorious example, throughout President’s Obama’s tenure in the White House, has been the hands-off approach to Islamic activists and serial apologists, such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Not all Muslims, of course, are intent on advancing the course of sharia in the United States. Not all Muslims associate themselves with CAIR. Nobody in a free country, of course, should be singled out because of their religion, as no one should be victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference and so on. However, such a philosophy echoes the creed of Martin Luther King’s enlightened humanism – and, let’s face it, the American constitution – but not, as has been argued the dogma of the PC brigade.

Most of the organisations and programs of Islamic revivalism in the United States, including CAIR, are not only associated with the conspiratorial and totalitarian-minded Muslim Brotherhood as “brothers in doctrine”, they are sub-units of the Muslim Brotherhood. For eight long years, by all accounts, President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice and other instruments of the state to ignore the subversive activities of groups such as CAIR. A combination of PC sensitivity and the absurd belief that activist Salafism (civilisation jihadism) could serve as a corrective. Salafi jihadism (violent jihadism) has placed America – and the world – in great peril. Donald Trump, for all his flaws, called Barack on it. Meanwhile, we learned from WikiLeaks the Muslim Brotherhood-supporting government of Qatar donated $1 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation as a celebration of Bill Clinton’s birthday.

American law professor Khaled A Beydoun, writing for Al Jazeera, the Muslim Brotherhood-loving media company owned by the Emir of Qatar, declared that Donald Trump’s “Islamophobia” mobilised not only “a fringe or rabid demographic” to his cause but a “sizeable segment of the American polity”. We might point out that in Qatar apostasy is a crime punished by death, as is homosexuality. Stoning and flogging are all legal in the oil-rich emirate, while blasphemy will get you seven years in jail, a woman’s testimony in court is worth half a man’s, and so on and so forth. We might further point out that Qatar and Saudi Arabia not only support “moderate terrorists” in the Syrian civil war but also pump untold millions into the global expansion of their respective militant anti-Western interpretations of Islam. Law-abiding and patriotic Muslims living in the United State have every right to be embraced by the American mainstream and judged, as Martin Luther King would insist, “by the content of their character”. At the same time, the pernicious influence of Salafism and Sharia in the West must be thwarted at every turn. The previous two sentences, contraire Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are far from incompatible.

A Trump presidency was not how most conservatives imagined we would escape the soft-totalitarianism of our PC jail. I imagined the liberation movement as an eagle soaring over prison walls. Trump’s populist insurrection, as it happens, is a dump truck that has smashed our prison gate off its hinges. It might be a Second American Revolution. From a modern-day leftist point of view it is a xenophobic fascist counter-revolution. From an anti-PC perspective, conversely, we can only hope it turns out to be a revolution in the spirit of 1776.

Daryl McCann blogs at darylmccann.blogspot


cp-editorial-171116 – Cairns Post Editorial, by Julian Tomlinson, 17 November 2016

Failed media sealed Don deal

“Trump’s policies barely got a look-in in mainstream media except to be held up as ludicrous, racist, backward, laughable and shocking.”



The snobbish nastiness and division perpetuated by gender studies experts

the-snobbish-nastiness-and-division-perpetuated-by-gender-studies-experts  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 16 November 2016

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat heiress, should now be president-elect Clinton. Women were going to rally to put the first woman in the White House. In the feminist dream and the determinist world of identity politics, the only possible event that could follow the election of the US’s first black president was the election of its first female president.

We are now witnessing what happens when reality explodes this take-it-in-turns determinist dream. Clinton was bound to blame something other than her own failings. That’s the calling card of left-liberal feminism. Of course, Barack Obama would blame the tight race on sexism. Identity politics demands that its adherents recast different views into an ism or a phobia — sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia and so on. Clinton said it best when she described Donald Trump supporters as deplor­ables: “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it”.

The post-election histrionics from so many women reveal why the so-called sisterhood has no claim over what women think, how they live and who they choose in the sanctity of the polling booth. After the US election, Mamamia’s Mia Freedman said she had “shut down”. Trying to process her ­“tumultuous, distressing, depressing feelings” she listed 11 things she learned after Trump’s win. Had Freeman stopped after No 1 — learning that she lives in a bubble of social media where like-minded people blissfully reinforce their own views — Freeman’s flash of self-awareness might have been noteworthy.

Sadly, her remaining list goes like this: facts no longer matter, white people are furious their power is being taken away, Trump appealed to the lowest common denominator and children are scared. This miasma of emotion simply confirms Freedman’s bubble where Clinton’s win was never questioned.

If women want to be treated seriously, they need to choose reason over emotion. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t, with any credibility, attack Trump for saying that Fox’s Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever”, then give yourself over to pure, unadulterated emotion.

Guardian Australia’s Katharine Murphy used the-facts-no-longer-matter theory to explain Pauline Hanson’s success at the last federal election and she regurgitated it last week to explain Trump’s win. According to Murphy’s post-fact analysis, people aren’t just stupid, they are deliberately stupid. “The journalism I consumed was gutsy, intelligent, richly reported, insightful, sceptical and self-aware,” wrote Murphy last week as she explained why the left-liberal media didn’t do a terrible job reporting Trump’s rise.

For all of that apparent consumption of intelligent news, Murphy’s analysis that Trumpland is a place where truth doesn’t matter is wrong and patronising. Nowhere in Murphy’s analysis is there any acknowledgment that millions of US voters, forgotten by the Washington insider class, turned to Trump out of this deep sense of frustration and discontent. Nowhere is there any curiosity about Trump, the outsider, as the powerful change candidate up against Clinton’s status quo politics.

Freedman and Murphy aren’t alone in choosing the superficial over soul-searching. Gillian Triggs remonstrates about it being a dreadful year for women. She has this is common with Clinton: the actions of both women have been their own undoing. Jamila Rizvi prefers to speak over and interrupt rather than listen to Steve Price explain Trump’s win on Network Ten’s The Project.

Those card-carrying feminists who display such a dearth of intellectual curiosity, and honesty, expose the sisterhood as an increasingly sanctimonious, clueless and diminishing clique.

Rebecca Sheehan, a lecturer at the University of Sydney’s United States Study Centre and an expert in feminist, gender and cultural politics, said that white people, with their “part of a college education or less”, voted for Trump because they were “clinging on to privilege”.

Sheehan’s anti-fact, derisory white-lash analysis fails to account for the two white candidates in the 2016 election and that millions of Americans voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. What irks gender experts is that you don’t need a college education — part or whole — to understand that girl power didn’t rally to make Clinton commander-in-chief. Neither did Latinos, blacks or millennials. On election day, Clinton was predicted to grab the white college-educated female vote by 27 points. It fizzed to six points. Clinton’s share of the overall female vote — 54 per cent to Trump’s 42 per cent — was behind Obama in 2008 and only one point ahead of Obama in 2012.

Inadvertently, Sheehan’s comments explain Trump’s win by expressing the high-horse disdain, the ignorance and determined ­divisiveness of feminists. It’s not a privilege to watch your dignity dissolve when you lose your job or see your weekly wage stagnate for two decades. It’s not a privilege to be forgotten by an insular political class. It’s not a privilege to watch Clinton enrich her private coffers through her public office. It’s not a privilege to watch a woman who held the office of secretary of state to imagine a different set of rules apply to you, deleting 33,000 emails after congress subpoenaed her to produce them. It’s not a privilege to watch Hollywood stars line up for Clinton, perpetuating the insider-outsider divide. There’s nothing privileged about a once proud culture of Western enlightenment being crushed by a pervasive leftist culture that infantilises students: last week students at Cornell University gathered for a “cry-in” with tissues and hot chocolate provided. Tufts University offered Play-Doh to distressed students. The University of Kansas made therapy dogs available to comfort students.

The biggest danger to women is not Trump: it’s the snobbish nastiness and division perpetuated by gender studies experts.

Contrast the offerings from Freeman, Murphy, Sheehan, Triggs and Rizvi with Tina Brown’s observations. Last week, the writer and former editor of left-wing opinion website The Daily Beast wrote: “Here’s my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played in Hillary’s demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate, when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump’s gross comments with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.”

“These are resilient women,” wrote Brown, “often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump’s unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he’d be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill’s.”

And it has taken a man to say what many left-wing women should be saying. Last week, Matthew Dowd from the US ABC News wrote: “I want to take this opportunity to say I was wrong about who would win the election. But my biggest regret, and what I would like to apologise for, is the arrogant, close-minded, judgmental, and sometimes mean-spirited way I related to many who believed Trump would win. They were right, and I was wrong.”

Bunkered in the New York bubble, Dowd admits he didn’t spend enough time listening to Trump supporters and understanding the communities “where another portion of America lives and breathes”.

It took a cool head to deliver a rational and informed mea culpa. The ill-informed and often emotional responses from so many women on the Left over Clinton’s loss confirms that the gender prism has become an anti-intellectual prison, locking them away from exploring, let alone understanding, the world beyond them.


Previous articles


Posted in Politically Correct | Comments Off on Elitists, PC/progressivists and left-leaning media threaten democracy

The US rise, fall, and now-possible rise again?

The US is the dominant world power.  But it has been failing, for similar reasons the Roman Empire failed, compounded by long-term plans for hegemony.  Will Donald Trump’s dramatic success enable beating back the elite establishment and the oligarchs?

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

Has the US become an oligarchy?

has-the-us-become-an-oligarchy  By Bill Federer, American Minute, 20 November 2016

Nov. 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address where 50,000 soldiers were killed or wounded in a three-day battle:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.

The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

President Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1903: “In no other place and at no other time has the experiment of government of the people, by the people, for the people, been tried on so vast a scale as here in our own country.”

Let us be watchful, lest we surrender forever our constitutional republic and “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Is “government of the people, by the people, for the people” perishing from the earth?

Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820: “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Students are taught America is a democracy, historians clarify it is a constitutional republic, but in actuality, America is functioning as an oligarchy – a rule by a few unelected federal judges.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “oligarchy” as: “A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands; a species of aristocracy.”


Missouri’s legislators passed a ban on partial birth abortion Sept. 5, 1999. Democrat Governor Mel Carnahan vetoed it. In a historic session, fifteen thousand citizens knelt in prayer around the State Capitol as the Legislature overrode his veto. Days later Federal District Judge Scott O. Wright suspended the law – and five years later it is still in limbo.

For years a bill to ban partial birth abortion worked its way through the U.S. Congress, being signed by the president Nov. 5, 2003. The next day a federal judge suspended the law for years – if not forever. In fact, 31 states passed bans on partial birth abortion, only to have un-elected federal judges suspend them.


“Absolute and arbitrary authority … independent of the control of men” is the Webster Dictionary definition of “despot.”

Thomas Jefferson warned of judicial despotism to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820: “Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so … and their power (is) the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

In his 1841 inaugural address, President William Henry Harrison warned: “The great danger to our institutions does … appear to me to be … the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments.”

Exercise in futility

Immense effort goes into the legislative process – political campaigns, registering voters, getting to polls, voting, swearing in, introducing bills, debating bills, voting on bills, overriding vetoes – yet this is all an exercise in futility if only a few unelected judges can invalidate the entire process.

For example:

  • The people of Arizona voted English as their official language, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, Prop. 106, March 3, 1997)
  • The people of Arkansas passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
  • The people of California voted to stop state-funded taxpayer services to illegal aliens, but federal judges overruled. (Prop. 187, Nov. 20, 1995)
  • The people of Colorado voted not to give special rights to homosexuals, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct. Romer v Evans, 1992)
  • The people of Missouri defeated a tax increase, but federal judges overruled. (8th Circuit, Missouri v Jenkins, Apr. 18, 1990)
  • The people of Missouri limited contributions to State candidates, but a federal judge overruled. (8th Circuit, Shrink Pac v Nixon, Jan. 24, 2000)
  • The people of Missouri passed “A Woman’s Right to Know.” Governor Bob Holden vetoed it. Legislators overrode his veto, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright, Sept. 11, 2000)
  • The people of Nebraska passed a Marriage Amendment with 70 percent of the vote, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Joseph Batallion, May 12, 2005)
  • The people of New York voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (2nd Circuit, April 2, 1996)
  • The people of Washington voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, March 6, 1996)
  • The people of Washington passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
  • The people of Montana voted by an overwhelming 74 percent to define a marriage as between one man and one woman, but federal judge Brian Morris overruled. (Nov. 19, 2014) Republican Rep. Steve Daines stated an “unelected federal judge” had ignored Montanans’ wishes. (Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2014)


In 1857, Democrat appointed Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney gave his infamous Dred Scott decision that slaves were not citizens, but property.

In his first inaugural address, March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated: “I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. … The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal.”

Have Americans “ceased to be their own rulers”? Have Americans “resigned their government into the hands of the eminent tribunal”?

Have we become an American oligarchy? Has “government of the people, by the people, for the people” perished?

Usurping power

Fifty-five men wrote the Constitution, but only 39 signed it. Why did some not sign it? They did not think it put enough limits on the power of the federal government.

Men like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry were against the Constitution. Why? Because they did not think it put enough limits on the power of the federal government.

The promoters of the Constitution convinced the 13 states that if they ratified the Constitution, the first action of Congress would be to put limits on the new federal government. There were 10 limits – the first Ten Amendments or Bill of Rights.

Over time, the federal government usurped power from the states. Thomas Jefferson warned Mr. Hammond in 1821: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in … the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body … working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states.”

Concerned the judges were over reaching, Jefferson wrote Sept. 6, 1819: “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Concentrated power

The Founders disliked concentrated power. Colonial leader John Cotton stated: “For whatever transcendent power is given, will certainly over-run those that give it. … It is necessary therefore, that all power that is on earth be limited.”

James Madison stated at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787: “All men having power ought to be distrusted.”

John Adams wrote in his notes from an oration at Braintree, Massachusetts, Spring 1772: “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with the power to endanger the public liberty.”

George Washington stated in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796: “And of fatal tendency … to put, in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party – often a small but artful and enterprising minority. … They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

President Andrew Jackson stated in his Bank Renewal Bill Veto, July 10, 1832: “It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power.”

President William Henry Harrison stated in his inaugural address, 1841: “The tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual … would terminate in virtual monarchy.”

Lord Acton wrote in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1881: “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Control government

James Madison sums up the current dilemma in Federalist Paper #51: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Is the Judicial Branch under control?

President Andrew Jackson stated in his seventh annual message, Dec. 7, 1835: “All history tells us that a free people should be watchful of delegated power, and should never acquiesce in a practice which will diminish their control over it.”

Citizens must not to give in to “a practice which will diminish their control over” the delegated power of the Judicial Branch, lest Americans find themselves pledging, not “to the Republic, for which it stands,” but to a new American Oligarchy.

Confusion of powers

November 18, 2003, even as Massachusetts legislators were working to define marriage as between a man and a woman, four state Supreme Court judges “ordered” the state legislature to pass a law within 180 days recognizing homosexual marriage.

Instead of “separation of powers,” the Massachusetts Supreme Court is suffering from “confusion of powers.” The Judicial Branch of government cannot “order” the Legislative Branch to do anything.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804: “Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. … But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

Deciding what laws are needed is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is simply to administer the laws according to the meaning the legislators had when passing the laws.

Thomas Jefferson explained to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823: “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

All would be lost

Baron Montesquieu, the most quoted writer by the framers of the Constitution, warned of the dangers of uncontrolled judicial power in his “Spirit of the Laws,” 1748: “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator. If it were joined to executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers.”

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of “Democracy in America” (1835), warned: “The president, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing great mischief in the state. Congress may decide amiss without destroying the Union, because the electoral body in which Congress originates may cause it to retract its decision by changing its members. But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent men or bad citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.”

Brought to you by


Donald Trump’s job is to fix Barack Obama’s mess

donald-trumps-job-is-to-fix-barack-obamas-mess  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 18 November 2016

Twenty years from now, Americans may look back on Tuesday November 8, 2016, as the day they voted to reject their continuing slide into mediocrity and set out to make their nation great again.

This US presidential election exposed what author Ayn Rand ominously foretold 70 years ago: “When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods but in favours — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your ­society is doomed.”

Generations of Americans have taken for granted that their system’s checks and balances would protect them from such a fate. They took pride in what ­author Samuel Huntington calls the “American Creed”, from which flows equality before the law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech and association, self-reliance, limited government, free markets, and decentralised and devolved public authority.

When freedom’s flame was flickering elsewhere, this creed enabled a diverse cultural melting pot to become an assimilated superpower, home to half the world’s gross domestic product.

That was before a succession of Robin Hood presidents imposed their glib socialist ideals on a gullible and unsuspecting public.

Unsurprisingly, an enthusiastic Barack Obama was one of them. By his own account, he was a radical student who, “to avoid being mistaken for a sell-out”, mixed with “politically active black students, foreign students, Marxist professors and structural feminists”.

He is what political commentator Mark Steyn calls, “the first invented American president”.

In office, Obama seems happier campaigning than governing.

Social issues rather than economic reforms occupy his mind. In the interminable culture wars being waged by the Left, he lends presidential authority to achieve “progressive” outcomes.

Most recently, he opened a new front with his advocacy for gay and transgender rights. His support of affirmative action and the Black Lives Matter movement upsets Middle America, which resents the relentless attack on its traditional values.

Obama is responsible for more executive orders than any other president. His environmental, wage and social policies are economically harmful. The cost of his administration’s regulations alone is estimated to be $US1.9 trillion. His universal healthcare scheme has left millions of people facing skyrocketing premiums and fewer choices.

Despite his upbeat rhetoric, 45 million Americans are on food stamps and 94 million have left the workforce. Food, energy, health and housing inflation has reduced today’s wage earners’ buying power to below what it was 30 years ago.

In contrast, Obama’s insiders have prospered. They have used influence and access to extract extra­ordinary windfall gains.

This is the America that president-elect Donald Trump inherits. It is deeply divided. It is run by elites and big government. Its economy is ailing and distorted. It is over-leveraged and suffers an income gap that has widened more under Obama than any other president.

Trump’s victory owes nothing to the Republican Party, many of whose leaders deserted him, or Wall Street, which eagerly supported Hillary Clinton, Hollywood celebrities and pop stars, whose ringing Clinton endorsements counted for nothing, let alone a media establishment that is now apologising for its biased campaign coverage.

Nevertheless, Trump must keep faith with his supporters.

He must create jobs, drain the Washington swamp, champion the repeal of burdensome regulations, simplify the tax code and make budget cuts that a structurally challenged economy needs.

He will need to rein in the Federal Reserve and abandon the US commitment to the UN’s COP 21 agreement. He also is obligated to overhaul Obama’s affordable care act.

But other than promise tax cuts and to restrict free trade, Trump has yet to present a coherent economic plan. He gives no clues as to how he intends to tackle the budget cuts necessary to finance lower taxes. He may attack the Federal Reserve for its recklessness but gives no insights as to how he will rein it in. The Fed should be reined in. Former Office of Management and Budget head David Stockman estimates it takes $US4 of debt to create $US1 of economic growth.

But he warns the debt already created is well beyond what any likely income and wages growth can support. He believes, one way or another, $US30 trillion of debt will have to be cut. “Last time such a reversion occurred, the period was known as the Great Depression,” he says.

Depression or not, Trump can’t ignore the danger.

The next financial crisis may be more prolonged and hit Middle America harder than the last. Without economic restructure, conventional remedies can provide only temporary relief.

Risks are more concentrated than in 2008 and confidence in governments and central banks is already badly shaken. That said, despite a Trump White House and a Republican House of Representatives and Senate, the amount of political boat-rocking required for legislated change could still see courage take flight. Already Trump is hedging on the Mexican wall, will keep aspects of Obama­care and has “not thought about” a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s alleged indiscretions.

Meanwhile, the widespread post-election anti-Trump protests continue in a desperate attempt to hang on to the Obama legacy.

At heart, the Obama establishment is authoritarian and will resort to undemocratic means if necessary. Draining the swamp will reveal many alligators.

The Donald has been under­estimated many times before. With the support of the US people, he may prove the pundits wrong, yet again. Or will he?



un-rigging-america  By David Kupelian,, 17 November 2016

 “RIG”: 1. to manipulate or control, usually by deceptive or dishonest means (“rig an election”); 2. to fix in advance for a desired result (“rig the contest”)

When I was a little boy growing up in the 1950s, one of America’s most-watched TV programs was the legendary CBS quiz show, “The $64,000 Question.”

At its peak, an astonishing 55 million Americans were watching the show weekly, mesmerized by contestants answering impossibly tough questions and winning astronomical amounts of money – then having to choose whether to keep their earnings or risk it all to double their haul, from the $1,000 question to the $2,000 question, to $4,000, $8,000, $16,000, $32,000, and finally the grand prize of $64,000.

Other TV quiz shows, like CBS’s “Dotto” and NBC’s “Twenty-One” rode this huge wave of popularity, all achieving sky-high ratings and ad revenues – that is, until May 1958 when it was discovered that “Dotto” was rigged, winners and losers having essentially been pre-selected by the show’s organizers.

Before long, the whole quiz-show phenomenon came crashing down, as former contestants from other programs stepped forward to confess they too had been “coached.” One contestant, a Christian minister named Rev. Charles E. “Stony” Jackson, gave details to a grand jury, testifying as to how he had been provided answers during his “screening” that enabled him to emerge victorious. But his conscience bothered him, and he later spilled the beans. Within a few weeks, “The $64,000 Question,” “Twenty-One” and “Dotto” were history, and the president of CBS, Louis Cowan, was forced to resign.

So that was my introduction to “rigging.” Sitting at our kitchen table and listening to my parents talk about it, I can still remember the surprise I felt as a 9-year-old. It was jarring. It made no sense. Why would anyone do that? What’s wrong with people?

Today, of course, as an adult I understand that fallen human beings often set aside ethics and honesty in favor of lying and cheating – and sometimes robbing and stabbing people in the back – to get what they want.

Which brings us to the 2016 presidential election.

For starters, the entire Democratic Primary – carefully orchestrated to create the illusion of a fair contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and intended to draw in tens of millions of Americans, create excitement and generate tons of money – was one giant fraud. The program’s organizers had pre-selected the “winner” and rigged the show to permit no other outcome.

As long as the contest appeared fair, the public loved it: Millions of Sanders supporters got fired up, held rallies that filled stadiums, donated lots of money and voted their hearts out. The vast Clinton machine, meanwhile, could barely fill a medium-sized school lunchroom rally, but racked up hundreds of millions in Wall Street money and virtually all of the unearned “super-delegate” votes. The “mainstream media,” in their pathetic role as full-time propaganda wing of the Clinton campaign, did their part and enthusiastically reported how great Hillary was doing and how far ahead of Bernie she was – thanks primarily to the DNC’s outrageously rigged super-delegate system.

When Sanders voters eventually realized (with WikiLeaks’ help) that the whole affair was a cynical charade meant to fool them into believing their candidate ever had a fighting chance, they felt betrayed and complained bitterly.

But no problem: While Team Hillary bought off Bernie at convention time and appointed a new DNC chair to replace outed primary fixer Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the establishment was busy rolling out yet another game show – an even bigger, more exciting and high-stakes one – called “The 2016 General Election.”

‘Coaching’ contestants before show time

As Donald Trump rightly observed throughout the campaign – and despite his ultimate victory – the whole election process was rigged on many levels, most visibly, of course, in the absurdly biased news coverage of the two candidates dished out by the establishment news media.

Based on an in-depth analysis of 588 news stories on ABC, CBS and NBC, a staggering 91 percent of broadcast networks’ election coverage of Donald Trump was outright hostile, according to the Media Research Center. No surprise there, since the Center for Public Integrity has revealed that 96 percent of journalists’ donations to presidential candidates went to Hillary Clinton.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, the media collusion became so overt as to be darkly comical – with, for example, Donna Brazile (the new and improved DNC chair who replaced the disgraced Wasserman Schultz) being revealed to have acted as a Clinton mole while working at CNN, passing Sanders intel on to Hillary’s campaign and tipping off Clinton about multiple town hall questions ahead of time.

Sort of like quiz-show honchos fixing the contest by secretly “coaching” their chosen winner before show time.

Since most of what the public sees and hears about the presidential candidates comes to them through the totally pro-Clinton filter of the major media, the “rigged” label seemed fair enough.

Ironically, journalism is the one profession explicitly protected by the Constitution in the First Amendment. Why? So it could not be crushed, interfered with, intimidated or otherwise rigged by a power-mad government. Unfortunately, no law, not even the Constitution of the United States, can stop people – including journalists – from being dishonest, deluded or just stupid.

Rigging the vote

Media collusion is just the most visible part of today’s “rigged system.”

Every election season brings with it talk of voter fraud. As a rule, Republicans say it’s real, while Democrats say it’s right-wing paranoia (while simultaneously calling Republicans racists intent on “suppressing” minority voter turnout).

The reality? From touchscreen voting machines that magically switch votes from Republican to Democrat, to alarming numbers of non-citizen voters and repeat voters and “walking dead” voters and so on, not only do voter fraud and abuse constitute a threat to America’s elections, but the left actively encourages such abuses – for example, by maniacally fighting to quash common-sense voter ID laws.

As Pulitzer-winning columnist George Will explained on Fox News’ “Special Report with Brett Baier” on Oct. 17:

I think when most Americans hear that an election is rigged, they think of government action to rig the election. And there Mr. Trump has a point. … It is hard to think of an innocent reason why Democrats spend so much time, energy and money, scarce resources all, resisting attempts to purge the voter rolls – that is, to remove people who are dead or otherwise have left the jurisdiction. It’s hard to think of an innocent reason why they fight so tremendously against voter ID laws. They say, that burdens the exercise of a fundamental right.

The Supreme Court has said that travel is a fundamental right. No one thinks showing an ID at the airport burdens that fundamental right. We know – we don’t surmise – we know that the 2010, ’12 and ’14 elections were rigged by the most intrusive and potentially punitive institution of the federal government, the IRS. … And I have talked to lawyers in a position to know, they say it’s still going on – that the IRS is still intolerably delaying the granting of tax-exempt status to conservative advocacy groups to skew the persuasion of this campaign.

Undoubtedly, the left’s biggest vote-rigging strategy remains rigging the electorate itself by importing as many immigrants as humanly possible, since statistically the vast majority of modern-day migrants, legal or illegal, lean Democrat. The left doesn’t seem to mind that, in the process, America’s culture, values, economy and national security are being permanently harmed. Creating a permanent progressive voting majority is paramount, regardless of the cost, to assure uninterrupted progressive rule and to prevent those evil racist Republicans from ever again taking charge of the country. That’s how the left rigs the game.

Thus, for example, a large and ever-expanding Hispanic immigrant population put both Arizona and Texas “in play” for Democrats in 2016. As former Republican Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas has said, it’s “an open secret Obama is trying to flood Texas with illegals to make it into a blue state” with a Democratic majority.

Now let’s delve into the heart of the matter. If we really and truly understand how and why we are living under a “rigged system,” then and only then is there hope to change it.

Unrigging the game

What are the rules of the American system?

From its inception, America’s legal rulebook has been the U.S. Constitution and the various state constitutions. Our nation’s economic system has been free-market capitalism, and biblical, Judeo-Christian values have long undergirded our dominant culture and moral code.

Question: While everyone knows America has been wrenched away from its roots in all of these areas in recent decades, who or what has instigated the rebellion against – and virtual abandonment of – this nation’s core operating systems?

Answer: The left.

Whether you prefer the term “the left,” “progressive,” “Marxist,” “statist,” “socialist” or “communist,” it is the left that has relentlessly undermined, defamed, attacked and ultimately led the near-total rejection of all that made America great.

Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has labored ceaselessly to rig (“fundamentally transform”) the American system on every front. For example, Obamacare. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are on record as claiming what they really wanted all along was total socialized medicine, codenamed “single payer.” Thus Obama and the Democrats repeatedly lied to the American public and barely passed Obamacare into law, expecting it would fail and thereby lead inexorably to what they wanted all along.

In October, the media breathlessly reported what conservatives had predicted for years – the dramatic unraveling of Obamacare. Failure, you see, was always part of the rigging. An unwieldy, unworkable, monstrous hybrid of private insurance and government control, Obamacare would inevitably fail, destroying the private insurance option and leaving only one way forward, however despised by most Americans: total government control of health care.

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert recently affirmed this scenario to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto: “You had clues all along the way,” he said. “They knew this was gonna cost a fortune, that things were gonna skyrocket and they anticipated someday they would get to this point and tell the American people, ‘Well, we gave the insurance companies a chance, and now the government just needs to take it over. …’”

Rebelling against the highest law

Our courts are rigged. Judges, like politicians, cynically swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, while many revel in violating it. Why? Because their left-wing moral and ideological sensibilities impel them to rig (“transform”) the American system by abandoning its core values, which they pretend to embrace but secretly hold in contempt.

To put it plainly, the party and ideology of rigging is the progressive-left Democratic Party. The whole Alinsky modus operandi is to work within the system one detests – as a clever alternative to outright revolution – so as eventually to overthrow the hated system, in this case, the Constitution, capitalism and biblical morality.

Indeed, it’s not just man-made law like the Constitution that the left is obsessed with subverting. As I wrote recently in “How the left revels in violating the 10 Commandments”:

The political and cultural left … simply cannot operate without violating all of the Ten Commandments. …

The great British leader Winston Churchill (whose bust was ejected from the White House immediately after Obama took office in 2009) described socialism as “the gospel of envy.” Churchill’s concise phrase encapsulates two profound truths: One, socialism is a religion to its adherents, and two, it appeals to and institutionalizes one of the darkest parts of human nature – envy. In thus glorifying and ennobling covetousness, socialism not only violates, but utterly rejects, the Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet.”

What about “Thou shalt not steal,” the Eighth Commandment? What is “wealth redistribution” but left-wing demagogues’ pious euphemism for stealing from one group and giving a small portion of the spoils to others, thereby amassing an ungodly amount of wealth and power for themselves? …

How about the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (or “Thou shalt not commit murder”)? Setting aside the 100-200 million people slaughtered or starved during the 20th century as a direct result of the imposition of the far left’s insane totalitarian-utopian system, just look at today’s America: More than 3,000 innocent babies slain in their mothers’ wombs every single day (the same number as died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks). …

The Seventh Commandment is “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Were this one commandment observed, the ever-metastasizing “sexual revolution” of the 1960s, brought to us entirely by the left, would disappear – and along with it the Pandora’s Box of tragedies and disasters unleashed by normalizing and glorifying extramarital sex. …

The left and its political fortress, the Democratic Party, never ceases to violate the Ninth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Indeed, the left’s No. 1 battlefield tactic for occupying new ground is its nonstop defaming, demonizing, suing and lying about conservatives, Christians and others who oppose its blindly destructive advances. …

Most Americans have very little reason to want to rig the system simply because they are happy, indeed infinitely grateful, for it – for the traditional Judeo-Christian cultural and moral values that have allowed Western civilization to flower; for the brilliantly inspired Constitution of the United States with its limited, divided government and expansive Bill of Rights; for free-market capitalism, proven to provide the highest quality of life and health for the largest number of people of any system in history.

And yet, the radical change agents and revolutionaries of the left insist on trying to rig the most successful system in human history to fail, and thus advance their collectivist, anti-American and increasingly globalist agenda. The agenda of globalists – brought to center stage by the presidential campaign of Donald Trump – largely converges with that of leftist progressives since both favor open borders and centralized power and both inherently reject a pro-American worldview.

To the extent America’s major institutions are run by the left, they are rigged, because the left operates by rigging and subterfuge – that is, it pretends to do one thing and to follow the rules, while actually violating the rules at will, so as to bring about a totally different result – a rigged result.

The big question

For decades, the hearts and minds of Americans have been under withering assault from the left. Our federal government has increasingly become a malignant cancer. Our educational system is a cesspool of secular progressive poison. Our establishment news media have become a propaganda ministry for the secular progressive elite. And Hollywood is dominated by enormously talented but freakishly troubled, corrupted and confused people.

As a result of all these negative influences and many others, millions of Americans are simply broken. As I document in my recent book “The Snapping of the American Mind,” a staggering 130 million Americans are dependent on toxic substances – alcohol and mood-altering drugs, legal and illegal – just to get through life. Tens of millions are slaves to various addictions. Beautiful, intelligent young people are brainwashed to believe socialism is good and capitalism is evil, that America is a dark, predatory nation, that confused men should be allowed to use women’s restrooms and that dozens of new genders now exist in addition to the two (male and female) we knew about from the beginning of human history until a few months ago.

Bottom line, millions of us – especially younger Americans – have become somnambulistic, shallow, self-absorbed, pleasure-seeking, ever-distracted people – blissfully ignorant of who and what we are, of human nature and the laws of God, of how the world works, of economic reality, of the necessity of responsibility and sacrifice, and of the basic lessons of history. Such as these have become walking, talking invitations to clever change agents, eager to deftly rob us of our birthright – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No wonder so much of our country is being rigged under our noses.

Consider the warning of Pennsylvania’s founder and first governor, William Penn: “If men are not governed by God, they will be ruled by tyrants.”

That’s what has happened to America. But it’s not too late – especially with the surprise election of Donald Trump as president, and what many consider to be nothing less than a divine reprieve from having to endure the reign of a screeching, lying, ever-deceiving Hillary Clinton.

The question now is, can we finally awaken from the progressive trance? Can we rouse ourselves from this long and stifling sleep and the dreamy delusions that have captured so many Americans’ minds thanks to the secular left’s pied pipers? Ultimately, the “un-rigging” of America has to start with us.

Can we simply stop being seduced and believing pleasant lies, and instead stand up and calmly but firmly speak the truth, in love? Can we stop hating and blaming, and instead just reclaim our God-given blessings as Americans, as people of God, as intact families, as defenders of the nation we love, as people of conscience, common sense, innovation and courage – which would finally give us a fighting chance to win back our beloved country?

That’s the $64,000 question.

Adapted from the November issue of Whistleblower magazine, edited monthly by David Kupelian.


Previous articles

Posted in The Rise and Fall of the US Empire | Comments Off on The US rise, fall, and now-possible rise again?

What ‘New World Order’?

What will the ‘New World Order’ (NWO) be?  Main stream media invariably describe it as conspiracy theory; some weblogs describe scary scenarios.  This post examines a range of views that demonstrate the reality and intentions of some world leaders and organisations such as the UN, past and present, as well as a range of articles on the subject.

Scan down to read the latest articles.  Links to more articles are at the end of this post.

How we can escape from the insidious control

how-we-can-escape-from-the-insidious-control  By Augtellez,

I said it before, the way people are controlled is through setting them in opposition with each other. The only way people regain control is if they work with each other for a beneficial future. The only way this falls apart is if people are fighting each other over petty things.

It’s all so much deeper than we are told. They didn’t just invent petty products’ for this “world” this “universe,” they introduced a whole spiritual soul-trading system by the use of electromagnetic frequency nets.

The state of the original human is eternal, but with this system the population is recycled over and over in time.

Active DNA is a physical thing that pulls information from what is called the “aether” (other realities) and manifests it physically in this reality.

If DNA is targeted , i.e. by the system just mentioned, then other realities can also be manipulated in instances where the DNA is active.

That is what this is all about: The Universe, time, and the Earth are naturally a multi-dimensional existence of which those other realities, times and planes were influenced because of the manipulation that took place here.

To say it another way, the divisive control grid has had access to higher dimensions and therefore the soul-energy of Humanity, and the non-physical realms we are connected with.

This is out of balance and cannot remain this way forever. It is leading up to a fulcrum of experience in which the forces at play must reach a completion of cycles.

The way we can fix this is by becoming aware of the hidden knowledge which is literally the invisible energy of the mental and emotional bodies. We must see how Humanity is being manipulated, or blocked from our higher awareness.

The off-the-wall explanation is that physical reality manifests out of the collective unconscious.

Which also means that when each person on Earth clears their unconscious of all the debris and toxins stuck in their ‘fields’ then we all will experience life on Earth at a frequency which reflects that healing.

To get to this healed “timeline” we have to go through a healing process. This process is cathartic and involves expelling the toxins of mind and body and is painful in and of itself.

In previous times this has been a “washing machine” cycle where people get tossed in and every so many thousand years some people get out while the rest are recycled.

This time may be the fulfillment of those cycles where the entire bunch gets released at once.

The idea is that if people are not prepared for this they will experience the chaos of a simultaneous clearing and healing.

Instead of painful healing spread out over months or years, it would all occur in a matter of days or weeks.

This is the time to take steps to represent ourselves. The follow the herd mindset is how people are manipulated and controlled mentally and physically.

We have to connect and work together, really work together, not just messaging and posting meme pictures which is just another way of control.

To the credit of this process it can be said that truth is spreading so fast because of that ability to convert the topics and knowledge into meme images and other quick bits of information that can be shared and understood within seconds.

Instead of minutes to hours of discussion or documentary, condensed images with captions can describe a complex situation to the fullest of its true exaggeration without having to explain hours of backstory and research.

However, few people own it all. Fewer people still have advanced technology that allows for a “futuristic” existence without the problems people are challenged by today. And even fewer people than that have the knowledge of the true human history.

What is not realized is that the shock of Humanity finding out about the origins of time and space is going to be far greater than figuring out that they were manipulated this entire time by people with greater knowledge.

The real truth under all the supposition is a complete disconnection from every school of thought which is currently accepted.

It’s completely beyond normal into the realm of paranormal, time loops, altered consciousness and DNA, soul-knowledge, eternity, quantum superimposition guided by imagination and attitude, and that it all happens right here… but is invisible to the 5-senses.

Currently the development of that which interprets energy from beyond the 5-senses has been purposely ridiculed and categorized to push people away from finding the truth so easily.

One could say this is for control as much as it is protection of the current system as much as it is for a challenge of their own spiritual values.

To take this a step further, imagine we are in a simulator of sorts, designed by the intelligence behind the “Multiverse” (or even something more personal).

If so, then what does it mean when people fight and hurt each other for material things? Do we say, they were just doing what they needed to or they are just in a simulator?

Or is this is a way of seeing who would do what, in what kind of situations, in a way that cannot be repeated, or in a way that cannot be falsified without dumping self-responsibility?

Or it may be a test, a manipulation, a challenge or a learning process all at once using confusion and fear to control Humanity.

In truth we have the capabilities and tools to remove this mental confusion and fear. In reality the mind is naturally beyond polarity as it is capable of abstracting from eternity.

Right now or minds are polarity based and this is the source of disturbance in our world.

By doing so we are trading that transcendence, our true heritage, for a polarized world by being disconnected from that eternal source which is the emanation of the soul and spirit through our body.

That is also why people say there are souled beings and non souled here because the other beings came from a Universe that is not connected with the source of this Universe. It is as if they cut across timelines to get to us.

Our completion out of polarity, our expansion out of paradox and into eternal meaning, would not be the same as the non-souled.

Actually one would cancel out the other, for if we reached completion and they did not then their occurrence of interjection would be experienced as a time loop which does not complete.

If they reached completion and ours did not, we would experience the completion cycle of another Universe’s being which would not resonate or return “soul-knowledge” to the source people are connected with.

This is in part why people are saying “ascension” is the way out. Because if the time loops are severed then it would be a planck time fractal repetition into infinite and those without the ability to navigate “hyperspace” would become one of with the void.

If this is to happen or either way, one must learn to navigate the spiritual world because that is the real playing field.

The big issue is not that we have stuff happening on Earth.

The issue is that the real playing field, the spiritual planes, have been targeted and infiltrated as far as this imbalance goes.

When we become aware of the knowledge of experience on the soul level we can bring harmony back to the overall system and when enough people do this “the grid” (or spiritual soul-trading system) cannot work with the harmonious energy.

There is no way to use harmonious energy and manipulate it to serve a personal need, it always serves the whole.


How 9/11 ties in with the New World Order

how-911-ties-in-with-the-new-world-order  By the Anonymous Patriots, 22  October 2016

The Millennium Report Exclusive

Did you know that the 9/11 events were perpetrated on the world’s people to cover up high crimes and treason by Americans against their fellow citizens as well as to all people on the planet?

Do you think you know all the facts surrounding 9/11? If so, think again and take time to read this important article that you will want to follow as We the People get busy prosecuting these criminals against humanity. We have no choice. Once you read this article, even if all you can do is scan the headers, you will also see that we can no longer ignore evil in our midst or we will all be exterminated or made into economic slaves.

We ALL need to be fully aware of the depth and magnitude of the crimes that have been committed and do something about it so that all people, from all countries around the world, can be free of the nightmare we have been living for the last one hundred years. The evidence is overwhelming, and it is our patriotic duty as a citizens of the United States to know the horrific DEEP backstory of 9/11 and to demand that these criminals, no matter what illustrious their titles and positions, be put on trial—for the whole world to see.

If you are not a citizen of the U.S., you have also been violated by these criminals and need to demand that crimes against humanity be prosecuted in a world court.

9/11 Investigations are Modern Day Kabuki Theatre to Keep You from Knowing the Real Truth

The 9/11 Commission Investigation was a complete farce run by Robert Mueller, the same person who ran the investigation on the BCCI scandal, the Iran-Contra criminal investigation, and the Noriega-CIA drug investigation.

The Commissioners of the Investigation of 9/11 followed no leads, investigated no banks or brokers, and the case was closed without looking at any evidence, with 28 pages of sealed testimony by Bush and Cheney remaining secret. In the wake of the total destruction of five buildings in the World Trade Center complex by the supposed collision of two airplanes, over 15 investigations into a variety of economic terrorism came to a halt. The culprits of 9/11 have not been caught and the real motives have been displaced on to patsy characters and groups, to name a few, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Linden, radical Islamic terrorism, Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

If you thought 911 was a false flag, then you should be aware of the bigger false flag that preceded the collapse of the WTC.

By now you have seen various puzzle pieces to this crime. You have seen how the U.S. government can legally run false flags against its citizens, how the military industrial complex is used by the warlord banksters to fund their operations, how the markets (stocks, bonds, commodities) are rigged, how the U. S. dollar is on the verge of collapse, and how the global shadow government works through organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and others. (Just put the name Anonymous Patriots into the search engine to see our articles on any of these topics.)

All of these puzzle pieces are lying on the table in disarray, waiting for a master “frame” so that all the dots can be connected and the picture of TRUTH can be revealed. In this article, we are going to show you the FRAME of the picture so that you will see how each puzzle piece fits together and shows us the horrific picture of EVIL.

Before you get started on this article, you may need a “catch up” on 9/11 and the new world order agenda. We recommend the documentaryInvisible Empire. Two hours. Excellent and better than anything you will watch on MSM tonight.

In this article you will learn:

Who were the real culprits behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center?

What part did oil cartels, bank cartels, and the CIA play in this attack?

What foreign intelligence agencies were involved?

Did the Saudi’s play a major role in the attacks?

Why was the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon destroyed by a missile?

When were the WTC and Pentagon attacks devised and what were the major motives?

What was the nature of the FBI investigation that was being conducted by the WTC offices that were bombed?

What are the names of the criminals responsible?

This article continues in the document how-911-ties-in-with-the-new-world-order


UN and Clinton’s New Urban Agenda and New World Order

un-and-clintons-new-urban-agenda-and-new-world-order  Leo Hohmann, 22 October 2016

 Hillary an enthusiastic supporter of globalist plan for U.S. cities

The United Nations has cooked up a “New Urban Agenda” coming soon to a city near you.

It was unveiled this week in Quito, Ecuador, at the so-called Habitat III conference.

And part of the plan, enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton, calls for unlimited migration across open borders. Migrants displaced by war, failing economies or other hardships will be seen as having “rights” in nations other than their own. Cities are seen as the key battlegrounds and the U.N. conference in Quito had a lot to say about how your city will be expected to embrace migrants of all types, from all regions of the world.

By now most Americans who follow world events are familiar with the U.N’s plan for global governance as envisioned by its “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” approved by some 190 world leaders including President Obama and Pope Francis in September 2015.

This agenda includes 17 goals aimed at ending hunger, wiping out poverty and stamping out global income inequality by “transforming our world” through sweeping changes ostensibly aimed at freeing cross-border “labor mobility,” among other things.

Hillary Clinton, anointed by Obama as his successor, said in a speech to Wall Street bankers she envisions the U.S. as part of a single “hemispheric common market with free trade and open borders,” according to WikiLeaks data dumps.

In another bombshell revealed by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton told Goldman Sachs bankers that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American.” She has also called for a 550-percent increase in the resettlement of Syrian refugees in America – that’s 550 percent more than Obama’s vastly increased level of more than 12,000 resettled in one year.

In short, Hillary’s agenda for cities sounds an awful lot like the U.N.’s agenda for cities as laid out in the New Urban Agenda document approved this week by world leaders in Quito.

“She’s totally in line with the U.N. agenda, on board with everything they do,” says economist Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.”

Clinton earlier this year announced her $135 billion “breaking every barrier” program to transform America’s cities.

In this plan, she makes 37 pledges promising everything from removal of blight to construction of affordable housing in areas that are currently out of the price range of refugees, immigrants, the chronically unemployed and under-employed. She intends to build on the “successes” of her husband and the Obama administration in using public-private partnerships to transform cities. Obama’s contribution in this area included his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which forces grant-receiving cities to infuse their low-crime suburban areas, deemed “too white,” with subsidized housing marketed to low-income renters.

This fits right in with the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

Wood, an expert on global governance and the technocracy movement, said “She’s making a pre announcement here that she’s going to follow the U.N. agenda. She’s signaling to her fellow globalists that she’s 100 percent on board with their agenda.”

The problem that keeps globalists like Obama and Clinton up at night is how to implement the sweeping changes laid out in the U.N. 2030 Agenda last September at the global sustainability summit in New York.

That’s where Habitat III comes into play. It’s called the U.N. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development or “Habitat III” for short. Its focus is on the world’s cities.

Largest U.N. conference ever

Habitat III was attended by a staggering 50,000 people including more than 200 mayors and another 140 city delegations.

The sole purpose of this conference, held only once every 20 years by the U.N., is to approve a 24-page document called the New Urban Agenda.

“The only purpose of the conference is to rubber stamp this document and elevate it and lift it up to the world,” said Wood. “And right now it looks like they are. Everybody. All the nations.”

In this document lies the globalists’ plans for cities. All cities. Big, small, even tiny cities. Every American who lives in a city will at some point see the fruits of the plan the U.N. has in store for the world, says Wood, an expert on global governance and the technocracy movement.

The Habitat conference convenes only once every 20 years but when it does, it leaves a trail of anti-capitalist, anti-freedom “global standards” in its wake, says Wood. These are the standards by which the U.N. wants each and every city in the world to be operated. They come packaged as “non-binding” and Congress never approves them.

Yet, somehow, the global standards coming out of the major U.N. conferences always seem to filter down to even the smallest American hamlet. How? Through federal grants. Any city that accepts federal grants will at some point be required to implement the practices that the U.N. has declared “sustainable.”

‘Inclusive’ by design, coercive by default

The catch word in the New Urban Agenda is “inclusive” or “inclusivity.” This concept has a long history with globalists.

The definition of “technocracy” as used by the original technocrats back 1938 was “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” That’s according to The Technocrat magazine.

“They use the word ‘entire’ twice in that definition so I’m really not surprised we see it showing up in these conferences today,” Wood said. “Their intent is to create a net that will catch 100 percent of the people.”

The word “inclusive” or “inclusivity” appear in the New Urban Agenda document no fewer than 36 times.

“There is no exclusion,” Wood says. “If you read the New Urban Agenda document, you’ll find for instance under item 6a, ‘transformative commitments,’ the statement starts out ‘leave no one behind.’”

That same phrase, leave no one behind, is in the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

“In fact just about everywhere you go now at the U.N. you’ll find this concept,” Wood said. “It’s a little disturbing.”

Wood says the U.N. is resurrecting an old concept that fizzled in the early days of the technocracy movement, back in the 1930s. Its time hadn’t arrived yet, but now things are different. The world is run by big data and the world is eager to embraced a set of globalized, one-world standards for everything, whether it be Common Core education standards, globalized police standards that Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the U.N. last fall in the form of the Strong Cities Network, or global standards for healthcare, ala Obamacare. You name it, the United Nations wants to standardize it.

The next big hurdle in the race to standardize the world is the issue of immigration.

Point 42 on page 7 of the New Urban Agenda talks about cities providing opportunities for dialogue, “paying particular attention to the potential contributions” of women and children, the elderly and disabled, “refugees and internally displaced persons and migrants, regardless of migration status, and without discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status.”

Everyone is welcome

Wood notes that, in America, that would mean exactly what John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, has already said — that anyone with a driver’s license should be allowed to vote.

“This is the way I read it,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal, wanted or unwanted, jihadists or non-jihadists, sick or healthy. If they show up in your country, they must participate in the affairs of that country immediately, whatever country they find themselves in.”

The preamble to the New Urban Agenda says cities are the “key to tackling global challenges.”

“So these people are viewing cities as the key ingredient right now to implementing sustainable development, and they say this battle for sustainability will be won or lost in the cities.”

And the U.N. document goes on to state that this agenda is “the first step for operationalizing sustainable development in an integrated and coordinated way at the global, national, subnational, and local levels.”

In essence, it’s a roadmap to global governance where American cities will no longer get their direction from elected officials representing them on the city council, or even the state legislature, but the United Nations itself. The local councils will likely not even know that the rules they are following in order to qualify for federal grants are tied to United Nations’ standards for sustainability.

Cities committing to ‘a paradigm shift’

The document talks about cities committing to “a paradigm shift” in the way they “plan, develop and manage urban development.”

“It’s top to bottom,” Wood said. “They’re saying it’s going to be a top-down implementation. But for all the gains that sustainable development have made since 1992, there’s been a complaint that it hasn’t gone fast enough or far enough, and that it’s not inclusive enough, that some pockets have been left out. So, what they’re saying here is that this New Urban Agenda document is really, in their minds, the first step for operationalizing it. First step to making sustainable development completely operational. That’s huge.”

Wallace Henley, a journalist and former aide in the Nixon White House who went on to become a Christian pastor and who has written extensively on globalism, said the U.N. is making a full-on assault against the American system of government, which requires federalism, states’ rights and separation of powers.

“The U.N. is a glaring example of the inevitable course of bureaucracies. Like kudzu in Alabama, a tiny seed will inevitably spread until it controls the whole of a hillside,” Henley told WND in an email.

And he, like Wood, sees Hillary Clinton in the thick of the battle, fighting on the side of the globalists, not America first.

“The leftist-progressive philosophy is the fertilizer. Agencies sprout and grow, and bring forth policy confabs like Habitat III. The conferences then produce white papers that ultimately become the source of policies,” he said. “It is a leftist-progressivist dream.”

“Sustainability” is a code word for regulatory authority, Henley said, and that is the suffocating vine that chokes out everything else.

“This meshes perfectly with the New Globalism and its dream of a world without borders. Anything can be done in the name of a ‘sustainable’ future, including the ‘humanitarian invasion’ of a sovereign state – but only if its leaders embrace the same left-progressive philosophy as the bureaucracies headquartered in New York. This makes a Hillary Clinton presidency even more foreboding,” he said.

And these “progressives” include many in the Republican Party who are now shilling for Clinton, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

“The true conservative seeks preservation of liberty-nurturing principles, and the sustenance of values that resist the control of the bureaucrats and guarantee freedom from a globalist hegemon in the form of the U.N.,” Henley said

Eric Voegelin’s 1975 book, “From Enlightenment to Revolution,” describes with amazing prescience the “line of progress” according to the revolutionaries who drive what Henley calls the New Globalism, from the local to the global, from the individual to the mass of humanity, from nation-states to a concentrated global power.

“This is the big picture of which Habitat III and its New Urban Agenda is a part.”


Previous articles concerning a ‘New World Order’

Posted in "New World Order" | Comments Off on What ‘New World Order’?

‘Must-read’ book reviews

This post comprises reviews books that add substantially to the understanding of our world, economics, politics, history and geopolitics, and what may happen in the future.

  • The Cosmic War, by Dr Joseph P Farrell
  • Phantom Self, by David Icke
  • 1984 – Nineteen Eighty Four. George Orwell’s 1950 classic
  • Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  • The Death of Money, James Rickards  
  • American Betrayal, Diana West
  • From Third World to First, Lee Kuan Yew
  • Lee Kuan Yew by Graham Allison

The Cosmic War, by Dr Joseph P Farrell

A review from Amazon of this extraordinary and compelling  ‘must read’ book, The Cosmic War: Interplanetary Warfare, Modern Physics, and Ancient Texts: A Study in Non-Catastrophist Interpretations of Ancient Legends, Author Dr Joseph P Farrell.

Farrell’s foray into ancient antiquity is scholarly in it’s precision and thought-provoking in it’s ramifications.  Oxford educated researcher Dr. Joseph P. Farrell unleashes a reverberating hypothesis regarding ancient history whose echoes will be forever heard.

Cosmic War is an extremely intriguing incursion into the possibility of a very ancient war in high antiquity. Dr. Farrell’s hypotheses of an Ancient Interplanetary War is argued in an in-depth, precise and reasonable approach. The extensive evidence Farrell collates and synthesizes will leave the reader aghast with the possibilities.

Intriguingly, many ancient cultures stated that the ‘Wars of the Gods’ were quite real. Predictably, even though there’s extensive evidence for advanced physics, advanced weapons, ancient [millions and BILLIONS of year old artifacts found by reputable sources], the establishment has painted all over ancient history with myth.

Regarding this very issue, Jim Marrs in his book Our Occulted History, sets his cross hairs on this very issue: “The term mythology stems from the Greek word mythos, simply meaning words or stories reflecting the basic values and attitudes of people. In past ages, when the vast majority of humans were illiterate, easily understood parables were used to educate people about history, science, and technology. During the Dark Ages, when most of people were taught that the Earth was flat, the word mythology was changed by the Roman Church to mean imaginative and fanciful tales veering far from truthfulness. This small change in semantics has caused untold damage in current perceptions.”

Ironically enough, there is starting to be more and more evidence of ‘myths’ now turning out to be fact. As Chris Hardy Ph.D remarks in her poignant book DNA Of The Gods: “…let’s remember that, before the discoveries of loads of ancient tablets written in the pictographic Sumerian language (Late Uruk period, fourth millennium BCE), the kingdom of Sumer was believed to be a myth. We had already discovered Akkad and deciphered Akkadian, and still archaeologists wouldn’t give credence to the numerous carved references, within historical dated records, to a line of kings whose title was “King of Sumer and Akkad”.

Or how about the “myth” of Troy: “This myth collapsed in 1865 with archeologist Frank Calvet’s discovery of the historic ruins of not only one city of Troy but nine layers of it! The city, whose siege is recounted in Homer’s Iliad, is only Troy VII, the seventh level underground, dating to the thirteenth century BCE.”

The gatekeepers, for many reasons, want to keep established history in a nice little box. Fortunately, as anyone who has extensively research these topics know, there’s more than ample evidence that shows that at minimum history isn’t what we have been told.

In any case, Cosmic War covers wide ranging but pertinent topics such as Van Flandern’s exploded planet hypothesis, an analysis of plasma in relation to weapons that employ scalar physics, petroglyphs which show plasma instability glyphs that were recorded by ancient cultures, remnants of giants in ancient history, optical phase conjugation, the story of the ‘gods’ as related through ancient texts, pulsars, generational charts of the ‘gods’, the scarring of The Valles Mariners being possibly from a weapon, Iapetus and its hexagonal craters, and a LOT more.

The ramifications of this book abound, and filter in all aspects of our lives. Dr. Farrell gives compelling reasons [coupled with countless others in his other trenchant books] as to why we need to give history, particularly ancient history, a very long and thorough look.

In its totality, this book is a veritable fountain of information that is scholarly in precision, and thought-provoking in its ramifications. This book is a must read for anyone interested in ancient history, ancient civilizations, and any of the topics there-in. There is more than enough information to make the reader curious about our past in more ways than they can really imagine.


David Icke’s “Phantom Self”: A Book Review from Freedom Articles


Phantom Self, the latest book of researcher David Icke, takes conspiracy research to a new depth with the idea of a primal virus that has hacked Life itself.

(Editor’s note: this book is amongst the most fascinating, timely and thought-provoking books I’ve ever read.  I strongly recommend setting aside all prejudice and past learning – what we were taught, and so believed – then reading it with an open mind. And then thinking deeply.)

Phantom Self is the latest book of famous researcher and free-thinker David Icke. Just as in his previous book The Perception Deception, David takes his research to a new level of depth with a comprehensive display of dot-connecting that will leave many in awe of his knowledge – but more importantly awaken people to the real dire straits humanity is in. Like many of his books, it ends with a positive message and the ultimate solution to all of humanity’s problems; however, most of the book is devoted to exposing the current reality of planet Earth, often in horrifying detail. This is an essential part of David’s message, for without the true knowledge of what is really going on – and the capacity to feel the horror of it – we will not muster the courage and motivation to change it. Part of the reason humanity is so stuck deep in the conspiracy is that it is engaged in massive collective denial, which it prevents it from acting decisively to quash and transform the evil (or unconsciousness as I prefer to call it). A hallmark of Phantom Self is that it takes a step further down the rabbit hole – past the reptilians and Archons – and looks at the controlling force behind them, which David says resembles some kind of computer virus that has hacked life itself.

The full review can be seen at david-ickes-phantom-self-a-book-review-from-freedom-articles


1984 – Nineteen Eighty Four

George Orwell’s classic 1950 novel is very worthwhile reading (again for most people).  It is frightening to review how much of what Orwell wrote is happening today, albeit is somewhat different guise.  Recall Orwell was a member of the Fabian Society, where he learnt of their plans before resigning.  He used novels as a practical was to publicise the plans he learn about from other Fabian members.  The Amazon website – – explains much about the book, and presents several perceptive reviews – this is one of the 4,613:

George Orwell’s classic was incredibly visionary. It is hardly fathomable that this book was written in 1948. Things that we take for granted today – cameras everywhere we go, phones being tapped, bodies being scanned for weapons remotely – all of these things were described in graphic detail in Orwell’s book.
Now that we have the Internet and people spying on other people w/ webcams and people purposely setting up their own webcams to let others “anonymously” watch them, you can see how this culture can develop into the Orwellian future described in “1984.”
If you’ve heard such phrases as “Big Brother,” “Newspeak,” and “thought crime” and wondered where these phrases came from, they came from this incredible, vivid and disturbing book.
Winston Smith, the main character of the book is a vibrant, thinking man hiding within the plain mindless behavior he has to go through each day to not be considered a thought criminal. Everything is politically correct, children defy their parents (and are encouraged by the government to do so) and everyone pays constant allegiance to “Big Brother” – the government that watches everyone and knows what everyone is doing at all times – watching you shower, watching you having sex, watching you eat, watching you go to the bathroom and ultimately watching you die.
This is a must-read for everyone.


Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

Author: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, was raised Muslim, and spent her childhood and young adulthood in Africa and Saudi Arabia. In 1992, Hirsi Ali came to the Netherlands as a refugee. She earned her college degree in political science and worked for the Dutch Labor party. She denounced Islam after the September 11 terrorist attacks and now serves as a Dutch parliamentarian, fighting for the rights of Muslim women in Europe, the enlightenment of Islam, and security in the West.

Editor’s note: this book should be considered essential reading by anyone who has an interest in Islam as well as everyone who is or may be effected by Muslims (that means just about everyone!).  The book is very comprehensive and, unlike most other books on the subject, provides not only a wide-ranging background and analyses based on her own experience, but some thought-provoking solutions.  After scanning numerous reviews of this excellent book, the following written by ‘Helpful Advice’ on Amazon is more or less  what I would have written.

After ‘Infidel’ and ‘Nomad’ worldwide known, equally hated and adored Ayaan Hirsi Ali is back on literary (and considering the topic inevitably political) scene with her new and probably the most controversial book so far she wrote – ‘Heretic’.

A book that will certainly be subject of numerous texts, quoted or despised, she raised the question of some key Islam teachings incompatibility with the values of modern or free society for which the majority (or at least we think so maybe) people in the world stands for.

It seemed that comparing to some other major religions, Islam somehow proved immune to changes in the new world we are living, characterized by enormous speed of information exchange and the development of human rights. There were some attempts such as Arab Spring that tried to challenge traditional thinking, ingrained prejudices or facts about the Muslim world. But with the simultaneous proliferation of Islamic fundamentalism and even its acceptance in certain circles of the population in the West, according to the author it seems that it is time for some radical actions that must be implemented by the very Muslims, not someone else from outside.

So, what Ali proposes needs to happen for Muslims to defeat the extremists for good? Economic, political, judicial and military tools have already been proposed, some of them deployed, though it seems that all these will have little effect unless Islam itself is reformed.

Therefore she calls for a Muslim Reformation—a revision of Islamic teachings, alignment of modern society with traditional religion doctrine, that seems difficult, but not unfeasible due to the rejection of extremist behavior among the majority of Muslims around the world.

She reminds that such reformation has been called for since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent abolition of the caliphate, but instead of general phrases and generalized objectives she precisely pointed out five key precepts that have made Islam resistant to historical change and adaptation. And only when the harmfulness of these ideas will be recognized and as result they will be rejected, a true Muslim Reformation would be possible.

Although to comment each of them would require writing essays, I’ll just list all five of them:
• Removing of Muhammad’s semi-divine status, putting him into the history context as important figure that united the Arabs in a pre-modern time that cannot be copied in the 21st century. And consequently also recognizing the fact that Quran is the book made by human hands.
• Emphasizing that life is more important than something that comes after it will reduce the appeal of martyrdom.
• Appreciation of modern laws that need to be put in front of Shariah legislation that is violent, intolerant or anachronistic.
• The abolition of the individual’s right and so called religious police to enforce the law, something for Muslim community is unfortunately particularly known
• And most important, Islam must become a religion of peace removing the imperative to wage holy wars against infidels

Once again this author must be admitted undeniable courage to tackle the dangerous subjects in a world where because of the drawn cartoons you can easily lose a life. Her theses are clear, her objectives are fully explained, her mission to change the Islamic world from the inside continues, causing the happiness and satisfaction of all civilized Muslims worldwide.

Therefore high recommendations for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, this brave author who after fighting for the rights of women engages into even greater battle with the hope that one day we will be able to say that books like these changed the world. For the better.


The Death of Money

The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System.  8 April 2014.  By James Rickards.

James Rickards, author of the other best seller, Currency Wars, has gone even further in The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System, in telling it like it is (and will be, so prepare yourself!). Jim’s all-facts, straightforward approach is peppered with just enough analogy and anecdotal wit to make sophisticated economic/mathematical/political concepts understandable to the (educated) layperson. His clarification techniques serve the book well by making sure the content never gets watered down or condescending. For anyone interested in knowing what is going on behind the scenes, how the dollar is being systematically devalued by The Fed (and why), what a rigged sham our banking system is, and how things are likely to play out in the very near future, read The Death of Money!

American Betrayal

The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character by Diana West (May 28, 2013).  Diana West’s newest book “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on our Nations Character” is a highly researched, blockbuster of a story taking 356 pages to tell with 29 pages of notes.  Whilst not directly about ‘management’, this book is packed with information that any successful manager should understand, in particular regarding communications (propaganda?)  and planning.  It’s the most thought-provoking, worrying, disillusioning book I’ve ever read.  I’ve attached a couple of reviews of the book from American Betrayal, Diana West, May 2013. Reviews  that give you a glimpse of what it’s about.  John, of John’s Newsletter fame, noted: ‘American Betrayal explains what many already know about the creation of the soviet monster by the FDR administration, stacked with communist spies and the author of the cold war from as early as 1942.  How FDR’s lackeys could give the USSR the atomic bomb via Lend Lease is fascinating and unfortunately true.  It is clear that powerhouse though she may be, America has been ungovernable since the outset…Just too big, too complex and too full of leaks and confused ideologies.  America is now, as a reaction, on the road to becoming a police state.  Folk who have read the book  called “The Open Society and Its Enemies” by Karl Popper will understand how the USA came to this pretty pickle and the realities behind this scandalous state of affairs.  Horrific though her anecdotes are, I have seen independent corroboration elsewhere of Diana’s central themes and accept them as factual – when asserted as such.  This book is too disturbing for general consumption.’

From Third World to First

The Singapore Story: 1965-2000 by Lee Kuan Yew  (Oct 3, 2000).  Note:  although older, it is useful to read this book before the Grand Master’s Insights book, below. Some comments on the Amazon website: Lee Kwan Yew had a clear vision, set himself clear goals…. Above all, what led to his success is his execution skills…. Although Singapore is a free market economy, its philosophy concerning workers and employees are caring and genuine, unlike in the United States….His views regarding leadership and a wide range of management issues are profound….. Read this book to be inspired.

Lee Kuan Yew

The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World by Graham Allison et al., 1 Feb. 2013.  Some comments on the Amazon website: Lee excels in pithy evaluations of regional and national strengths and weaknesses. At his best, the man is a cross between Confucius and Machiavelli. (Washington Times)……..”I found myself engrossed this week by the calm, incisive wisdom of one of the few living statesmen in the world who can actually be called visionary. The wisdom is in a book, “Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States and the World,” a gathering of Mr. Lee’s interviews, speeches and writings…He is now 89, a great friend of America, and his comments on the U.S. are pertinent to many of the debates in which we’re enmeshed.” — Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal.


Posted in Must-Read Articles | Comments Off on ‘Must-read’ book reviews

Brexit: democracy in action

What will Brexit mean, both short and long-term?  Could it lead to more countries’ rank and file voters deciding to take back control from the elitists who denigrate the hoi polloi?  Or will the elite continue to try to trample on democracy?

Scroll down to see previous articles

Article 50: down with this legal coup against the masses

article-50-down-with-this-legal-coup-against-the-masses By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 5 November 2016

The use of the law to stymie Brexit is a naked, elitist assault on democracy.

Today’s High Court ruling that Article 50 should not be triggered by the government but rather must be mulled over and decided on by MPs is being presented as a mere technical decision. It’s just about ins and outs. It’s about practicalities, not politics. It’s about the ‘procedure and policy’ of how we leave the EU, says one of the filthy-rich claimants who took this Brexitphobic court action. They really must believe their own propaganda about us Brexit-backing plebs being ‘low information’ (Forbes) and ‘ignoramuses’ (Richard Dawkins) if they think we’re going to buy this. We aren’t. This court action, and the glee it’s being greeted with by media and political haters of Brexit, is 100 per cent political, to its core. It’s motivated far less by a love for legally clean procedure than by a naked disdain for ordinary people and our democratic authority. It’s not a blow for box-ticking; it’s a blow against what we the people said in the ballot box on 23 June.

The that this case was a school-prefect-style stab for a clean, constitutional Brexit is shot down by the fact that it was brought by devoted Remainers. The super-wealthy spearhead of the case, Gina Miller, says she was made ‘physically sick’ by Brexit. She says the dim-witted decision to leave the EU, taken by 17.4million people, is a result of our having been ‘lied to’ (ie, we were brainwashed) and then choosing to do some ‘venting of anger’ (ie, we behaved emotionally). Miller has been hailed ‘woman of the century’ by influential Remainers who are dedicated to diluting or even thwarting Brexit. And the court’s decision is being celebrated by Remainers who want to hold up (rather than uphold) the people’s will. This is a ‘great moment for parliament’, says philosopher turned hater of democracy AC Grayling, since it means ‘MPs acting from courage and conviction [can] stop Brexit’. And they say with a straight face that it’s ‘about process, not politics’. They really do think we’re idiots. They really think we cannot see through their low, cynical marshalling of the law to prevent democracy, to stop politics, to undermine us.

The most laughable argument being pushed by these pleaders with white-haired judges to block the passions of the mob is that they’re standing up for parliamentary sovereignty. They pose as democrats who simply want to preserve the authority of parliament over the say-so of a single PM. With fantastic Orwellianism, one of the campaign groups that begged the High Court judge to hold up the political desires of the moronic masses calls itself ‘The People’s Challenge’.

Pro-parliamentary sovereignty? Come off it. These are the very same pro-EU types who watched and clapped for years as parliamentary sovereignty was watered down through the EU and who branded as xenophobic or a Little Englander anyone who said, ‘Wait, shouldn’t our parliament be properly sovereign?’. They have no attachment whatsoever to the fundamentals of parliamentary sovereignty. They’re only interested in it now because they hope, desperately, that MPs, a majority of whom are Remainers, will vote down what they view as the calamity of Brexit. That is, they’re drawn to parliamentary sovereignty as a potential tool for undermining the demos, for opposing the people, for acting against democracy.

They seem not to realise that if parliamentarians were to override or even slow down the will of the majority this would call into question the entire moral legitimacy of parliament. It would devastate its democratic and moral remit, the very thing we fought wars and beheaded a king to preserve, which is derived precisely from the throng that these elitists view with such unconcealed disgust. Parliamentary sovereignty isn’t some academic, legalistic idea that judges defend and allow: it is us made political flesh, the institutional expression of the spirit of the people. For MPs to act against Brexit would violently intensify cynicism of institutions and bring about a crisis of democracy of the kind Britain hasn’t experienced for a very long time. Yet this is the price some Remainers are willing to pay to stop Brexit: the hollowing-out of the historic spirit of parliament. The truth is that parliamentary sovereignty was exercised when parliament agreed to hold a referendum and to distribute pamphlets which openly stated: ‘The government will implement what you decide.’ This act of parliamentary sovereignty entrusted the fate of the EU to the people, and now this must be acted on — fully and swiftly, because the people want it, not because a judge thinks it might be feasible at a certain point.

Let’s stop talking in euphemisms. Let’s park the blather about ‘procedure’ and ‘process’. What is happening here is that well-connected, well-off people are using the courts to stymie the democratic will. It is a straight-up assault on democracy, of the sort that when it happens in Latin America or Asia the very Remainers currently cheering our wise judges would shake their heads and say: ‘Why are those foreigners so uncivilised?’ The court case is a disgrace. It’s anti-democratic, anti-politics, fuelled by a dread of the demos and by feelings of ‘physical sickness’ for what the majority of people think and want. We make them puke.

The majority calmly discussed the EU, made a decision, and voted against it. And yet they’ve been ceaselessly defamed as ‘low information’ and ‘racist’ and have watched as their decision has been undermined and held up and relentlessly delegitimised by academics, lawmen and politicians. What must we do to make ourselves heard? To be taken seriously? If the ballot box doesn’t work, maybe it’s time for the streets?

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked


It’s time to shoot down the post-Brexit hate-crime hysteria

its-time-to-shoot-down-the-post-brexit-hate-crime-hysteria Brendan O’Neill, editor of spiked.  15 October 2016

This is the most cynical, politically motivated crime panic in memory.

Has there ever been a crime panic as flimsy, as see-through, as explicitly designed to make political mileage as the post-Brexit hate-crime hysteria? Too many people are nodding along to this nonsense, accepting as hard fact every doom-tinged utterance from the police and evidence-lite statement from the Home Office. They repeat and tweet every claim from officialdom about ‘soaring hatred’ since the 23 June referendum, and hold it up as proof that the vote to leave the EU unleashed the latent xenophobia and even homophobia of Them: those sections of society that are Eurosceptical and therefore evil. Enough. This is a moral panic, plain and simple: a naked example of the kind of ‘crime construction’ by the powers-that-be that liberals and leftists might once have critiqued, back when they were more questioning.

The hate-crime hysteria doesn’t stand up to even the mildest scrutiny. This week, the gay-rights group Galop caused global waves when it claimed homophobic hate crime rose by 147 per cent in the three months after the referendum, due to the ‘toxicity fostered by the EU referendum debate’. How does that work, then? There was no anti-gay sentiment in the Leave campaign. None of the arguments for leaving the EU was related to homosexuality. Yet we’re expected to believe that, somehow, a discussion about the future of a Brussels-based institution led to people thinking: ‘Bloody gays. Let’s get them.’ Who’s buying this?

If you’re buying it, hopefully a glance at Galop’s laughably unsubstantiated report will make you think again. The report claims 2.1million gay people in the UK have experienced hate crime, and many such crimes happened in the three months after Brexit. But these ‘facts’ are based, not on court cases or police investigations or images of bruised bodies, but on one online survey of 467 LGBT people. This survey was distributed through ‘community networks’ of ‘LGBT activists, individuals and professionals’. It asked the 467 self-selected LGBT people if they had ever experienced any kind of hatred relating to their identity. Around 80 per cent said yes. Working from the assumption that there are 2.7million LGBT people in the UK – and, as Galop admits, this is a big assumption, since ‘there are no census figures about LGBT communities’ – Galop extrapolated from the responses of these 467 individuals to say that 800,000 gay men, 500,000 bisexual people, 400,000 trans people and 400,000 lesbians have been the victim of hate crime, with a spike in such crimes after Brexit. I’m going to put my neck on the line and say this is not good science. What we have here are unproven claims, made in surveys distributed by ‘community networks’ that might, just might, have a vested interest in bigging-up the victim status of the gay community; and these unproven claims are then projected on to a gay population at large whose numbers are unknown in order to tell a story about mass hatred for homosexuals that simply isn’t visible in daily life. This isn’t science; it’s hocus pocus.

Yet much of the Remainer lobby bought into this mystical Brexit spike in homophobic crimes, just as they have uncritically accepted every claim of a post-Brexit hate-crime rampage. For months now, politicians and the media have been telling us that Brexit unleashed an ‘epidemic’ of violent spite. Media Remainers latch on to every police statement about spiralling hate crimes as proof that leaving the EU is a disaster, and Britain has overnight turned into a cesspit of backward thinking. Their cloying, uncritical faith in the cops and their figures is touching, but it’s misplaced.

Yesterday, the Home Office issued its annual report on hate crimes. It says there was a ‘sharp increase’ in hate crime after the referendum. In July there were 5,468 hate crimes – 41 per cent higher than the number of hate crimes in July last year. But again, we need scepticism – a lot of it. These 5,468 alleged incidents – I know it’s evil to use the word ‘alleged’ these days, but some of us still believe in due process – have not been investigated, far less tried in a court of law, and therefore there is no hard proof of what happened or whether it happened. This is because these ‘crimes’ (the police and Home Office have given up on the word ‘allegations’) are simply things that have been told to the police, often through their phone or email hotlines. And then the police instantly – instantly – record them as hate crimes, with no need for questioning or investigation of any kind. Every single person who phones a hate-crime hotline is believed. Again, this isn’t science.

For a flavour of how flabby the definition and recording of ‘hate crimes’ has become, consider this stipulation from the Operational Guidance for police forces dealing with such crimes: ‘For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident… The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident.’ Got that? In order for an alleged incident to be recorded as a hate crime – that is, for a phoned-in claim to become a hard fact – the victim or any other person simply has to say it was a hate crime and the cops will not challenge them for evidence. Remainers constantly decry the Leave lobby’s ‘post-truth politics’, yet they embrace an explicitly anti-evidence method for crime recording, buying into the hate-crime hysteria despite the fact that hate-crime recording, unlike any other crime, is based entirely on subjective feeling.

There’s something almost pre-modern in this instant belief in alleged victims, in this magical transformation of story into fact. Indeed, it brings to mind the cry of John Proctor in The Crucible, Arthur Miller’s play about the Salem witch trials: ‘Is the accuser holy now?’ In the world of hate crime, yes, the accuser is holy. His claim, his word, is sacrosanct; no one may question it. Politics doesn’t get much more post-reality than this.

The alleged post-Brexit spike in hate crime is likely to be down to both this highly relativistic recording of such crimes and also to officialdom’s active trawling for such crimes. Various wings of the authorities went looking for hate after the referendum. From the widespread Twitter-sharing of the police’s hate-crime hotline to the Mayor of London’s special webpage imploring people to phone or email about ‘hate crimes following the referendum result’ (my italics), the authorities were desperate to get more people phoning, because every single phone call is instantly a hate crime and this bolsters their general belief that Brexit has caused instability. They didn’t neutrally, scientifically observe a hate-crime epidemic; they were convinced one was taking place and they set out to prove that. They proved their own theory. They found what they wanted to find.

The true story here is not that Britain became more hateful post-referendum, but that officialdom, aided by spectacularly uncritical commentators, has developed new ways of cynically constructing crime epidemics. And to what end? To the explicitly political end of demonising the choice made by voters in the referendum and depicting Britain outside of the EU as a dangerous place in which old and ugly views have been emboldened. Rarely has the political motivation behind spreading a crime panic been so obvious, so shrill, as this.

And yet no one on the left or in liberal academia is criticising this madness. This is an extraordinary turnaround. In the 1970s and 1980s, left-leaning sociologists and criminologists devoted much intellectual energy to exposing crime and moral panics. The titles of their books and papers say it all: ‘Panic: The Social Construction of the Street Gang Problem’, ‘Juvenile Crime and the Construction of a Moral Panic’, ‘Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance’. They recognised that the authorities’ handwringing over certain kinds of crime – football hooligans, black muggers, glue sniffers – was often fuelled more by fear than facts. And they argued that such panics were often deployed for explicitly political purposes, to demonise a ‘deviant’ section of society and make the case for the introduction of more authoritarian measures. That so many nominal leftists and liberals are not only buying into the Brexit hate-crime hysteria but are actively promoting it confirms the extent to which this political group has abandoned its scepticism of authority, and is now little more than an unofficial arm of the status quo.

There’s a grim irony. Media Remainers accuse Leavers of being authoritarian populists, longing for more social control, driven by a fear of the Other. Yet the hate-crime hysteria suggests this is more true of Remainers. Indeed, the term ‘authoritarian populism’, coined by left-wing theorist Stuart Hall in the 1980s, was originally used to describe those who pushed crime panics as a means of allowing officialdom to problematise sections of society and police society at large. ‘Authoritarian populism’ was never a very useful phrase, speaking as it did to the 1980s left’s wrongheaded, anti-democratic conviction that the authoritarian impulse emanated from below, from the populace, rather than from the political elite. But today it is better applied to influential Remainers than ordinary Leavers, since it is they who spread crime panic; who ‘Other’ whole swathes of society (dumb, hateful anti-EU whites); and who implicitly invite more authoritarian policing and censorship to deal with their utterly invented tsunami of hate. Post-truth, fact-lite, fearful authoritarian – know thyself.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked.


90 Days Later: Still No Signs Of Brexit ‘Doom & Gloom’

90-days-later-still-no-signs-of-brexit-doom-gloom  From Zerohedge, 3 October

For the first half of the year, we were warned early and often by authorities that the Brexit vote could be a calamity for the ages.

For example, the IMF claimed that a “Leave” result would threaten to “cause severe damage”, while Standard and Poor’s said that it would “paralyze” investment in the UK.

But, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notesit turns out that the real Brexit casualty isn’t the UK economy – instead it is the reputation of the many professional economists who wrongly predicted doom and gloom as the likely aftermath.

The two charts tracked are the GBP/EUR and the FTSE 100. The former is the price of the British pound in terms of euros, and the latter is a major stock index that includes the largest companies listed in London, such as Barclays, Glencore, HSBC, Royal Dutch Shell, or Sainsbury’s.

As expected, both markets have seen some action in the aftermath of the vote to leave. The pound has depreciated in terms of euros, but it is still higher now than it was from 2009-2011 in the post-crisis period. Against the ultra-strong USD, the pound is at decade-lows – but many other currencies are in similar territory as well.

The FTSE 100 is another story. It’s relatively close to all-time highs – and even despite the fears of a potential collapse of Deutsche Bank, it’s climbed over 12% since the initial Brexit slump.

In both cases, the action was partly underscored by the Bank of England, which announced a new stimulus program (QE) after its August meeting, while cutting rates from 0.5% to 0.25%.


While there’s been movement in the currency and equity markets, other economic indicators have been status quo or better for the UK so far.

Retail sales beat in July and August, and unemployment remains at 11-year lows. Purchasing manager indices dropped temporarily, but jumped back up.

The economists that predicted that the sky was falling? They’ve been forced to revise growth expectations back up, at least on a short-term basis. It’s been dubbed the “Brexit Bounce” by The Spectator, a conservative magazine based in London.

While there is likely still going to be some long-term fallout from the Brexit decision, many “experts” blew it on this one.


More articles concerning Brexit and implications

Posted in Brexit: a world-changing event? | Comments Off on Brexit: democracy in action

Financial Poker, Crime and Incompetence

Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals.   The outlook is dire.

Scroll to end to view previous articles

Rickards: The global elites’ secret plan for the next financial crisis

rickards-the-global-elites-secret-plan-for-the-next-financial-crisis  By Jim Rickards, Editor, Currency Wars Alert, 28 October 2016

In my forthcoming book The Road to Ruin: The Global Elites’ Secret Plan for the Next Financial Crisis, I make a very simple point: In 1998 we were hours away from collapse and did everything wrong following that. In 2008, we were hours away from collapse and did the same thing. Each crisis is bigger than the one before.

The stock market today is not very far from where it was in November 2014. The stock market has had big ups and downs. A big crash in August 2015, a big crash in January 2016. Followed by big rallies back both times because the Fed went back to “happy talk,” but if you factor out that volatility, you’re about where you were 2 years ago.

People are not making any money in stocks. Hedge funds are not making money. Institutions are not making money. It’s one of the most difficult investing environments that I’ve ever seen in a very long time.

Again, the 2008 crisis is still fresh in people’s minds. People know a lot less about 1998, partly because it was almost 20 years ago. It was an international monetary crisis that started in Thailand in June of 1997, spread to Indonesia and Korea, and then finally Russia by August of ’98. Everyone was building a firewall around Brazil. It was exactly like dominoes falling.

Think of countries as dominoes where Thailand falls followed by Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea and then Russia. The next domino was going to be Brazil, and everyone (including the IMF and the United States) said, “Let’s build a firewall around Brazil and make sure Brazil doesn’t collapse.”

The Next Domino

Then came Long-Term Capital Management… The next domino was not a country. It was a hedge fund, although it was a hedge fund that was as big as a country in terms of its financial footings. I was the general counsel of that firm. I negotiated that bailout. I think a many of my readers might be familiar with my role there. The importance of that role is that I had a front-row seat.

I’m in the conference room, in the deal room, at a big New York law firm. There were hundreds of lawyers. There were 14 banks in the LTCM bailout fund. There were 19 other banks in a one billion dollar unsecured credit facility. Included were Treasury officials, Federal Reserve officials, other government officials, Long-Term Capital, our partners. It was a thundering herd of lawyers, but I was on point for one side of the deal and had to coordinate all that.

It was a $4 billion all-cash deal, which we put together in 72 hours with no due diligence. Anyone who’s raised money for his or her company, or done deals can think about that and imagine how difficult it would be to get a group of banks to write you a check for 4 billion dollars in 3 days.

Those involved can say they bailed out Long-Term capital. They really bailed out themselves. If Long-Term Capital had failed, and it was on the way to failure, 1.3 trillion dollars of derivatives would’ve been flipped back to Wall Street.

The banks involved would’ve had to run out and cover that 1.3 trillion dollars in exposure, because they thought they were hedged. They had one side of the trade with Long-Term and had the other side of the trade with each other. When you create that kind of hole in everyone’s balance sheets and everyone has to run and cover, every market in the world would’ve been closed. Not just bond markets or stock markets. Banks would’ve failed sequentially. It would’ve been what came close to happening in 2008.

Very few people knew about this. There were a bunch of lawyers there, but we were all on 1 floor of a big New York law firm. The Fed was on the phone. We moved the money. We got it done. They issued a press release.

It was like foaming an airport runway. You’ve got a jet aircraft with a lot of passengers and 4 engines on flames, and you foam the runways. The fire trucks are standing by, and somehow you land it and put out the fire. Life went on.

Financial Crisis

After that, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates twice, once at a scheduled FOMC meeting on September 29, 1998, and again at an unscheduled meeting. The Fed can do that. The Fed doesn’t have to have a meeting. They can just do an executive committee-type meeting on the phone, and that’s what they did. That was the last time, in October 15, 1998, that the Fed cut interest rates outside of a scheduled meeting. Though it was done to “put out the fire.” Life went on.

Then 1999 was one of the best years in stock market history, and it peaked in 2000 and then crashed again. That was not a financial panic. It was just a stock market crash. My point is that in 1998, we came within hours of shutting every market in the world. There were a set of lessons that should’ve been learned from that, but they were not learned. The government went out and did the opposite of what you would do if you were trying to prevent it from happening again.

What they should’ve done was banned most derivatives, broken up big banks, had more transparency, etc. They didn’t. They did the opposite.

The government actually repealed swaps regulations, so you could have morederivative over-the-counter instead of trading them on exchanges. They repealed Glass-Steagall so the commercial banks could get into investment banking. The banks got bigger. The SEC changed the rules to allow more leverage by broker-dealers rather than less leverage.

Then Basel 2, coming out of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, changed the bank capital rules so they could use these flawed value-at-risk models to increase their leverage. Everything, if you had a list of things that you should’ve done to prevent crises from happening again, they did the opposite. They let banks act like hedge funds. They let everybody trade more derivatives. They allowed more leverage, less regulation, bad models, etc.

I was sitting there in 2005, 2006, even earlier, saying, “This is going to happen again, and it’s going to be worse.” I gave a series of lectures at Northwestern University. I was an advisor to the McCain campaign. I advised the U.S. Treasury. I warned everybody I could find.

This is all in my upcoming book, The Road to Ruin. I don’t like making claims like that without backing it up, so if you read the book, I tell the stories. Hopefully, it’s an entertaining and readable, but it’s serious in the sense that I could see it coming a mile away.

Now, I didn’t say, “Oh gee, it’s going to be subprime mortgages here,” the kind of thing you saw if you saw the movie “The Big Short.” Obviously, there were some hedge fund operators who had sussed out the subprime mortgage. To me, it didn’t matter. When I say it didn’t matter, the point that I was looking at was the dynamic instability of the system as a whole.

I was looking at the buildup of scale, the buildup of derivatives, the dynamic processes and the fact that one spark could set the whole forest on fire. It didn’t matter what the spark was. It didn’t matter what the snowflake was. I knew the whole thing was going to collapse.

Too Big To Fail

Then, we come up to 2008. We were days, if not hours, from the sequential collapse of every major bank in the world. Think of the dominoes again. What had happened there? You had a banking crisis. It really started in the summer of ’07 with the failure of a couple of Bear Stearns hedge funds, not Bear Stearns itself at that stage but these Bear Stearns hedge funds that started a search.

There was one bailout by the sovereign wealth funds and the banks, but then beginning in March 2008, Bear Stearns failed. In June, July 2008, Fannie and Freddie failed. Followed by failures at Lehman and AIG. We were days away from Morgan Stanley being next, then Goldman Sachs, Citibank followed by Bank of America. JPMorgan might’ve been the last one standing, not to mention foreign banks (Deutsche Bank, etc.).

They all would’ve failed. They all would’ve been nationalized. Instead, the government intervened and bailed everybody out. Again, for the second time in 10 years. We came hours or days away from closing every market and every bank in the world.

For the everyday investor, what do you have? You’ve got a 401k. You’ve got a brokerage account. Maybe you’re with E-Trade or Charles Schwab or Merrill Lynch or any of those names. You could run a pizza parlor, an auto dealer. You could be a dentist, a doctor, a lawyer, anyone with a small business. You could be a successful investor or entrepreneur.

You’ve got money saved and you’re looking at all of that wealth being potentially wiped out as it almost was in 1998 and in 2008.

How many times do you want to roll the dice? It’s just like playing Russian Roulette. One of these times, and I think it’ll be the next time, it’s going to be a lot bigger and a lot worse.

To be specific, I said in 1998 the government, regulators and market participants on Wall Street did not learn their lesson. They did the opposite of what they should do. It was the same thing in 2008. Nobody learned their lesson. Nobody thought about what actually went wrong. What did they do instead? They passed Dodd-Frank, a 1,000-page monstrosity with 200 separate regulatory projects.

They say Dodd-Frank ended “too big to fail.” No, it didn’t. It institutionalized “too big to fail.” It made “too big to fail” the law of the land, because they haven’t made the banks smaller. The 5 biggest banks in the United States today are bigger than they were in 2008. They have a larger percentage of the banking assets. They have much larger derivatives books, much greater embedded risk.

People like to use the cliché “kick the can down the road.” I don’t like that cliché, but they haven’t kicked the can down the road. They’ve kicked the can upstairs to a higher level. From hedge funds to Wall Street, now the risk is on the balance sheet of the central banks.

World Money

Who has a clean balance sheet? Who could bail out the system? There’s only organization left. It’s the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They’re leveraged about 3 to 1. The IMF also has a printing press. They can print money called Special Drawing Rights (SDR), or world money. They give it to countries but don’t give it directly to people. Then the countries can swap it for other currencies in the SDR basket and spend the money.

Here’s the difference. The next time there’s a financial crisis they’ll try to use SDR’s. But they’ll need time to do that. They’re not going to do it in advance and they’re not thinking ahead. They don’t see this coming.

What’s going to come is a crisis, and it’s going to come very quickly. They’re not going to be able to re-liquefy the system, at least not easily.


Jim Rickards


We are living on borrowed (money) time

we-are-living-on-borrowed-money-time   By Vern Gowdie, The Daily Reckoning, 13 October 2016

The Dow fell 1% on concerns over a possible rate hike and lower oil prices. And the real fear is central banks may have decided to throw in the towel on QE. The prospect of markets standing or falling on their two feet was enough to take some money off the table last night.

The market’s fears are unfounded.

Central banks, for all their talk about it being time for governments to do the heavy lifting with fiscal policy, are secretly addicted to their experiment.

They oh so desperately want their theories to work.

In central banker land (a far off and distant place inhabited solely by economic PhDs with fairy wings and pixie dust) the thinking goes something like this: All we need is more time, more money, even more negative interest rates, the abolition of cash and, if that still isn’t enough, to have the power to command the military to threaten people at gunpoint to borrow and spend. Then the world will see we were right all along.

The world watches their every move. They’ve had a taste of real power. The celebrity status that’s accorded to them is feeding egos. Heads of government court them. Central bankers are not about to go quietly into the night. You can bet your bottom dollar (and that’s all some people will be left with when this is over) the central bankers will continue their experiment until the bitter end.

The warnings on debt overload have come thick and fast in the past week.

First we had the ‘better late than never/continually adjusting growth projections downward’ IMF (and no, it is not an acronym for Idiots, Morons and Fools) telling us — surprise, surprise — the world has an unsustainable level of debt.

Shock horror…we never saw that one coming.

The Guardian’s coverage of the ‘big’ announcement ran with the headline: ‘IMF urges governments to tackle record global debt of $152tn’.

McKinsey Global Institute published a report in February 2015 (21 months ago) titled: ‘Debt and (not too much) Deleveraging’. In the report, McKinsey identified the world had added another US$57 trillion in debt since 2007. According to McKinsey, the total debt pile as at 2014 was US$200 trillion. The IMF reckons it’s at US$152 trillion.

My money is on McKinsey being closer to the mark.

Anyway, when you’re that far in the red, we can put the difference down to a rounding error.

Back to The Guardian article:

The International Monetary Fund has urged governments to take action to tackle a record $152tn debt mountain before it triggers a fresh global financial and economic crisis.

Warning that debt levels were not just high but rising, the IMF said it was vital to intervene early in order to mitigate the risks of a repeat of the damaging events that began with the collapse of the US sub-prime housing bubble almost a decade ago.

It said that new research in its half-yearly fiscal monitor covering 113 countries had shown that debt was currently 225% of global GDP, with the private sector responsible for two-thirds of the total.

Does the IMF seriously think this is some sort of revelation? If they do, what hope have we got?

Brace for impact folks.

What makes me laugh is the line, ‘Warning that debt levels were not just high but rising…

Of course debt levels are rising.

What do you expect the outcome will be when the cost of borrowing is zero or, if you’re lucky, investors will actually pay you for the privilege of lending you money? Go figure, debt levels are rising.

Even our own RBA acknowledged the borrowing incentive provided by low interest rates.

Up until recently, the RBA’s monthly statement on the cash rate included this sentence: ‘Monetary policy has been accommodative for quite some time.

That’s central banker speak for ‘We are keeping interest rates low for long enough to make borrowing money — to stimulate growth — look like a no-brainer’.

The RBA have dropped this sentence from recent statements…perhaps they got sick of stating the obvious.

Given this accommodative policy, it comes as no surprise that the head of S&P Sovereign Ratings Committee issues a warning earlier this week over our foreign debt levels.

According to The Australian on 10 October 2016:

Australia’s foreign debt has hit “extreme” levels that match the worst in the world, according to a startling warning from ratings agency Standard & Poor’s that will intensify the dispute over budget repair after years of political deadlock on major savings.

The global S&P executive who signs off on Australia’s credit rating has rung the alarm over the nation’s debt, suggesting the Turnbull government will need to find substantial new savings to avoid losing its coveted AAA rating.

Foreign debt is money we’ve borrowed from overseas investors to fund our lifestyles.

We are living well beyond our means, but, what the heck; we’re the envy of the world.

Mr [Scott] Morrison attended the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington last week.

“There is not an economy in the G20 or otherwise that would not want to be Australia at the moment and would not want to have the strong financial and banking system that ensures that we can have the resilience to ensure we underpin jobs and growth in this country,” he told parliament on Monday [9 October 2016].

— Yahoo7 News

They said the same about the Spanish economy in 2007. Look how that debt-financed property bubble economy turned out.

In the blue corner we have the IMF and S&P Ratings saying ‘whoa, time to rein in the debt’; in the red corner we have central banks and governments saying ‘we need to keep rates lower to accommodate more borrowing so we are the most envied economy in the world’.

Imagine the four parties sitting around a table; the conversation would go something like this:

CB and Govt.: We need more debt to grow the economy.
IMF and S&P: We have too much debt already in the economy.
They all ask: Then, how do we grow the economy?
CB and Govt.: We need more debt to grow the economy.
IMF and S&P: We have too much debt already in the economy.
They all ask: Then, how do we grow the economy?

This is the bind we are in.

For far too long, debt has been the sole economic driver in the global economy.

We are utterly dependent on it for a statistical measurement of ‘growth’.

The creaks and groans of the world’s debt load are becoming so loud even the IMF can hear it in their soundproof Washington DC offices.

The last time the system took a break from shouldering more debt was in 2008/09. Here’s the Federal Reserve chart on total US debt since 1945. That minor, teeny-weeny disruption in the extrapolating debt trend resulted in the greatest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. That’s a serious dependency issue.  Since 2008, the only thing additional debt has bought us is a stay of execution.

We are literally living on borrowed time.

When the debt load collapses under its own weight, envy is going to turn to pity.

Pity those poor Australians (literally) who believed their own BS about being recession-proof, who have borrowed to the max to fund lifestyles well above their pay grade.

Our total national debt (public, corporate and private) is $6 trillion — four times the size of our economy. We have never been more exposed to an external shock. This could get real ugly.

When the authorities — ratings agencies and the likes of the IMF and Bank of International Settlements — start issuing warnings, while at the same time government ministers strut around like peacocks telling us ‘how good we are’, you know it will have gone past the point of no return.

That’s why central banks will plumb new lows to keep the whole thing upright for as long as possible.

The end result will be the US share market going to new highs — the classic suckers’ rally awaits.


Vern Gowdie, for The Daily Reckoning


Deutsche Bank in dire straights

deutsche-bank-in-dire-straights  From Zerohedge, 30 September 2016

It is not solvency, or the lack of capital – a vague, synthetic, and usually quite arbitrary concept, determined by regulators – that kills a bank; it is – as Dick Fuld will tell anyone who bothers to listen – the loss of (access to) liquidity: cold, hard, fungible (something Jon Corzine knew all too well when he commingled and was caught) cash, that pushes a bank into its grave, usually quite rapidly: recall that it took Lehman just a few days for its stock to plunge from the high double digits to zero.

It is also liquidity, or rather concerns about it, that sent Deutsche Bank stock crashing to new all time lows earlier today: after all, the investing world already knew for nearly two weeks that its capitalization is insufficient. As we reported earlier this week, it was a report by Citigroup, among many other, that found how badly undercapitalized the German lender is, noting that DB’s “leverage ratio, at 3.4%, looks even worse relative to the 4.5% company target by 2018” and calculated that while he only models €2.9bn in litigation charges over 2H16-2017 – far less than the $14 billion settlement figure proposed by the DOJ – and includes a successful disposal of a 70% stake in Postbank at end-2017 for 0.4x book he still only reaches a CET 1 ratio of 11.6% by end-2018, meaning the bank would have a Tier 1 capital €3bn shortfall to the company target of 12.5%, and a leverage ratio of 3.9%, resulting in an €8bn shortfall to the target of 4.5%.

When Citi’s note exposing DB’s undercapitalization came out, it had precisely zero impact on the price of DB stock. Why? Because as we said above, capitalization – and solvency – tends to be a largely worthless, pro-forma concept. However, when Bloomberg reported today that select funds have withdrawn “some excess cash and positions held at the lender” the stock immediately plunged: the reason is that this had everything to do with not only DB’s suddenly crashing liquidity, but the pernicious feedback loop, where once a source of liquidity leaves, the departure tends to spook other such sources, leading to an outward bound liquidity cascade. Again: just ask Lehman (and AIG) for the details.

Which then brings us to the $64 trillion (roughly the same amount as DB’s gross notional derivative exposure) question: since DB is suddenly experiencing a sharp “liquidity event”, how much liquidity does Deutsche Bank have access to as of this momentto offset this event? The answer would allow us to calculate how long DB may have in a worst case scenario if we knew the rate of liquidity outflow.

For the answer, we go to a just released note by Goldman Sachs, which admits that it is now facing “crisis” questions from clients, among which “can a large European bank face a liquidity event” to wit”

Deutsche Bank stands at the center of the European financial system – it is a major counterpart of all relevant European banks, and broader. Recent reports of potential litigation hits have compounded capital concerns, and raised the overall level of market anxiety.“Crisis” questions are being asked: “is there risk of a financial crisis re-run” and “can a large European bank face a liquidity event”?

So what is the answer: how much liquidity does Deutsche Bank have access to? The answer is two fold, with the first part focusing on central bank, in this case ECB, backstops in both $ and €.

Goldman starts with an overview of said back-stops, summarized below. These facilities are available to all Eurozone banks (and, naturally, also to Deutsche Bank) – they are generous in terms of volume (full allotment), price (fixed rate at 0%) and tenure (from short term, all the way to 4-years). These ECB facilities are key to ensuring the bank’s long-term funding stability, in Goldman’s view, and were put in place following the funding market fallout in 2007, in order to contain the effects from the Lehman crisis. They were further bolstered to contain the Eurozone sovereign crisis in 2011-12. All of the liquidity provisions remain in place, and broadly, they fall into the following two categories:

  1. Regular market operations: 1-week Main Refinancing Operations or “MRO” (priced @0%), and 3-month Long Term Refinancing Operations or “LTRO” (@0%);
  2. Non-standard measures, which split between € funding facilities with 4-year Targeted LTROs (@0%, with the option to fall to -0.4% if lending targets are met) and the emergency liquidity assistance to solvent financial institutions and a US$ funding facility: 1-week US$ MRO (@0.86%).

Stepping away from the ECB – because if Deutsche is forced to come crawling to Draghi and beg for central bank liquidity assistance to continue as a going concern, the outcome may be just as dire (recall the stigma associated with US banks using the Fed’s Discount Window) especially since  unlike Lehman, DB has nearly €600 billion in deposits which are susceptible to a retail depositor run – what about Deutsche Bank’s own liquidity position? It is this which appears to be concerning the market most, because as Goldman writes, following the Bloomberg report that hedge fund clients have pulled excess cash, the market has reacted aggressively (ADR down 6.7%), indicating concerns have moved from DBK’s equity to question the resilience of the banks’ funding position.

Below, Goldman provides an overview of DBK’s liquidity position, noting that its last reported liquidity reserve stood at €223 bn or ~20% of its total assets. DBK’s high quality liquid assets (or HQLA) balance stood at €196 bn or 16% of its total assets; its liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) stood at 124%. DBK’s LCR is above that of many largest European banks (BNP 112%), as well as US banks (Citigroup

Here is the breakdown:

  • Liquidity reserve: €223 bn, or ~20% of total assets. In total, DBK’s liquidity reserve stood at €223 bn, representing ~20% of the banks total net assets (where assets are US GAAP equivalent). The 2Q16 level of liquidity reserve compares to €65 bn in 2007, showing that DBK has grown its liquidity reserve by 3.4x from pre-crisis levels.
  • Cash: €125 bn. The liquidity reserve breaks down between €125 bn of cash and cash equivalents, and €98 bn of securities, available for use at the central banks. As highlighted in Exhibit 2, the € portion of the securities can be used to obtain liquidity of varied duration (between O/N to 4-years) at a cost of 0% (and as low as -40 bp, if lending benchmarks are met).
  • LCR: 124%. DBK’s Liquidity Coverage ratio stood at 124%, which is ~1.5x the current regulatory minimum, and a cut above the 2019 fully-loaded requirement of 100%. This compares favorably to, say, Citigroup (121%), BNP (112%). Other US banks (e.g. JPM, BofA) do not disclose their LCR other than to say that they are “compliant”, suggesting LCR is at or above 100%.

Where does this liquidity come from? Exhibit 3 above examines DBK’s funding composition – this is relevant in the context of media reports highlighting a decline in prime brokerage balances (Bloomberg, September 29). These include:

  • Lowest volatility funding: 57%. Lowest volatility sources of funding – retail deposits, transaction banking balances (corporate and institutional deposits from corporate banking relationships) and equity account for 57% of total funding. Over half of the groups’ funding therefore, stems from this source.
  • Low volatility funds: 15%. Debt securities in issue account for 14% of total funding. Together with the previous category, “lowest” and “low” volatility funding accounts for 72% of total funding.
  • Other customers – this includes prime brokerage cash balance – 7%. The total amount of “other customer” funds, which includes: fiduciary, self-funding structures (e.g. X-markets), margin/Prime Brokerage cash balances (shown on a net basis(see DBK 2015 annual report, p178). Importantly, this represents ~7% of total funding, and is 3.1x covered with the liquidity reserve.
  • Other parts of funding – unsecured wholesale, secured funding – account for the residual.

In other words, all else equal, even in a worst case Prime Brokerage situation, one where all €71 billion in “other customer” funds flee, DB should still have about €152 billion of the €223 billion in liquidity reserve as of June 30, once again assuming there have been no other changes. Stated simply, if the hedge fund outflow accelerates and depletes all the liquidity at the Prime Brokerage division, DB would part with about a third (just over  €70 billion) of its €220 billion liquidity reserve.

Some other observations: even if one assumes the full loss of PB balances, DB would still have a Liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) of 124%.  The LCR is equivalent to HQLA/net stressed outflows over 30 day period. This ratio shows the banks’ ability to meet stressed funding conditions over a period of 1 month. For Deutsche bank, the LCR stood at 124% with the ratio composed of:

  1. High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLAs) of €196 bn. These include Level 1 assets (the most liquid securities which include cash and equivalents, bonds issued or guaranteed by a government and certain covered bonds); Level 2A assets, which are subject to a haircut (third country government bonds, bonds issued by public entities, EU covered bonds, non-EU covered bonds, corporate bonds) and Level 2B assets (high quality securitisations, corporate bonds, other high quality covered bonds).
  2. The net stressed outflows: €158 bn as of 2Q16 (YE15 €161 bn). DBK’s net stressed outflows amounted to €161 bn at year-end 2015, and include an assumption of loss of prime brokerage deposits. As per Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 “Deposits arising out of a correspondent banking relationship or from the provision of prime brokerage services shall not be treated as an operational deposit and shall receive a 100 % outflow rate.”
  3. The minimum level is 100% (effective 2018) and is phased in gradually from 2015; the 2016 requirement is 70%.

Of course, the “stressed outflow over a 30 day period” is an assumption, one which can accelerate rapidly, especially if the stock price of DB continues to fall crushing what is any bank’s most critical asset: counterparty confidence, either from retail investors or institutional peers.

Still, what the above calculations reveals is that the Bloomberg report suggest that while substantial, the Prime Brokerage outflow would not be, on its own, deadly.  But therein lies the rub: since any bank’s collapse is a procyclical event in which liquidity flees in all directions, with a speed that is usually inversely proportional to the stock price, the lower the price of DB goes (and the higher its CDS), the more dire its liquidity situation.

However, as noted above, the biggest threat to DB is not so much its hedge fund client base, whose damage potential is limited, but the depositor base. Again: while Lehman failed, it did so as a result of its corporate counterparties suffocating the bank by rapidly pulling out their liquidity lines. Lehman, however, was lucky in that it didn’t have retail depositors: it death would have likely come far faster as the capital panic was not limited to institutions but also included a retail depositor bank run.

This is where Deutsche Bank is very different from Lehman, and far riskier, because if the institutional panic spreads to the depositor base, which as the table below shows amounts to some €566 billion in total, and €307 billion in retail deposits…

… then all bets are off.

Which is why it is so critical for Angela Merkel to halt the plunging stock price, an indicator DB’s retail clients, simplistically (and not erroneously) now equate with the bank’s viability, and the lower the price drops, the faster they will pull their deposits, the quicker DB’s liquidity hits zero, the faster the self-fulfilling prophecy of Deutsche Bank’s death is confirmed.

Which ultimately means that DB really has four options: raise capital (sell equity, convert CoCos, which may results in an even bigger drop in the stock price due to dilution or concerns the liquidity raise may not be sufficient), approach the ECB for a liquidity bridge (this may also backfire as counterparties scramble to flee a central bank-backstopped institution), appeal for a state bailout (Merkel has so far said “Nein”) or implement a bail-in, eliminating billions in unsecured claims (and deposits) and leading to a full-blown systemic bank run as depositors everywhere rush to withdraw their savings, leading to a collapse of the fractional reserve banking mode (in which there is only 10 cents in physical deliverable cash for every dollar in depositor claims).

Which of the four choices Deutsche Bank will pick should become clear in the coming days. Until it does, it will keep the market on edge and quite volatile, because as Jeff Gundlach explained today, a “do nothing” scenario is no longer an option for CEO John Cryan as the market will keep pushing the price of DB lower until it either fails, or is bailed out.


Previous Financial Crime, Poker and Incompetence articles

Posted in World finance: when will the bubble burst? | Comments Off on Financial Poker, Crime and Incompetence

Socialism, bureaucracy and the nanny state

Articles describing how bureaucracy – and bureaucrats – systematically cause delays and unnecessary expenditure.  ‘Yes Minister’ really was a documentary, not fiction!

Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control  of our freedom

cairns-post-editorial-201016  By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016

“Voters should be demanding fewer parliamentary sitting says and fewer laws, but increased penalties for actual wrongdoing.”



The Truth Behind ‘Revolutions’

 The Truth Behind Revolutions  By Alexander Light,; 27 August 2016

As you’ve probably noticed, I was pretty “vocal” regarding the coup taking place in Libya. Since I started expressing my opinion, I’ve received a lot of positive feedback from you. Most of my readers know what is really happening behind the closed curtains, but I was surprised to see that there are still people who don’t understand what a coup is and what’s the purpose behind it.

Today I will tell you about my first hand experience with a Western-coup. And like all coups, it also received the name of “people’s revolution.”

I didn’t live in Libya under dictator Muammar Gaddafi, but I lived in Romania under dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

  1. Wars Vs. Coups

Before going any further, please allow me to tell you what the purpose of a coup is.

The human species, unfortunately, has a very bloody history. There was always a war taking place somewhere on our planet. From our distant history, to the modern times, mankind never knew peace. The main purpose of a war is to gain wealth. Long time ago, it was an easy scheme, and Julius Caesar said it best: “veni, vidi, vici” – “I came, I saw, I conquered”. Once the war was over, the winner took over the lands and wealth of the defeated.

But things are more complicated in modern times. Wars are not so simple anymore. Weapons are very expensive, the human loss is not easily tolerated by modern society, the motives for an invasion/war must be good (see Pearl Harbor or 9/11), keeping an army abroad is very expensive (for example, the budget for keeping the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 only, reached $663.8 billions – Wikipedia), not to mention the destruction caused to an invaded country and the social distress.

A more simple and effective solution is for the “conqueror” to place in power a corrupted leader controlled by him. This way, the conqueror controls the entire country and all its wealth, without expenses, destruction or distress.

But things get complicated when the leader of a country is a dictator or an incorruptible patriot. And here is where coups work their black magic.

  1. Examples of Coups

A good example is Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, who in 1999 won the elections for the first time. His opponent was Carlos Perez, a former Venezuelan president, a pro-American and corrupted leader who gave the wealth of his country for personal materialistic gains. He lived and died as a wealthy man in Miami, USA.
Hugo Chavez is an incorruptible patriot, therefore inconvenient to the Western powers who are desperately trying to remove him from power. Chavez speaks of numerous failed assassination attempts (Washington Post). The Bush administration also planned for a coup to take place in 2002, but fortunately it failed because Chavez is very loved by his people.

1. Democracy Now: “CIA Documents Show Bush Knew of 2002 Coup in Venezuela”
2. The Guardian (UK): “Venezuela coup linked to Bush team”
3. Project Censored: “Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup in Venezuela”
4. Venezuela: Chavez accuses US of assassination plot

Steve Kangas wrote:
“CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.”

The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator.

The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.”

Examples include:
– the coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran;
– the ouster of democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala;
– one coup per year (between 1957-1973) in Laos;
– the installation of the murderous “Papa Doc” Duvalier in Haiti;
– the assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic;
– the overthrow of Jose Velasco in Ecuador;
– the assassination of the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (later Zaire);
– the overthrow of the democratically elected Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic;
– the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart in Brazil;
– the overthrow of the democratically elected Sukarno government in Indonesia;
– a military coup in Greece designed to install the “reign of the colonels” (when the Greek ambassador complained about CIA plans for Cypress, Johnson told him: “F**k your parliament and your constitution”);
– the overthrow of the popular Prince Sahounek in Cambodia;
– the overthrow of Juan Torres in Bolivia;
– the overthrow and assassination of Salvador Allende in Chile;
– the assassination of archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, and dozens of other incidents rarely if ever taught in American school history lessons.

As John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), as a former respected member of the international banking community and National Security Agency economist, told Amy Goodman: “Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring—to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government….


This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men.”

Perkins’ job was “deal-making”:

“It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan — let’s say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador — and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure — a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries.

The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, ‘Look, you’re not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.’

And today we’re going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It’s an empire. There’s no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It’s been extremely successful.”

III. If coups are so repaying, then why are wars still taking place?
Most of the money for these loans, according to Perkins, is provided by the World Bank and theInternational Monetary Fund (Rothischild-owned private bank), the two premier neolib loan sharking operations (it is important to note that the Straussian neocon, Paul Wolfowitz, is now president of the World Bank, thus demonstrating how closely related the neocons and traditional neolibs are).

If the loan sharks are unable to steal natural resources (oil, minerals, rainforests, water) as a condition of repaying this immense debt, “the next step is what we call the jackals.”
“Jackals are CIA-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn’t work, they perform assassinations—or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren’t able to get through to Saddam Hussein… His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.”

  1. My personal experience: The 1989 Romanian CoupI was in Romania during the 1989 so called “people’s revolution” under dictator Ceausescu. In fact, it was a 100% Western coup, with the sole purpose of looting the country of its wealth!There were hundreds of reasons for the Romanian coup to take place. First of all, Ceausescu was a communist & pro-USSR.- Romania had no external debt + US $2.7 billions in the National Bank + around US $10 billion to receive from other countries from exports (in 1989!). The exports were rapidly increasing.- Romania was mass-exporting cereals, wine, weapons (especially the PKM), ammunition, etc. – while keeping the imports low.- Romania also had oil fields and all the petrol used was internaly produced.- Romania’s gold exploitation gave a $5 billions/year profit and the country’s gold reserve was fairly big (tens of tons). The gold mines were expanding.- All Romanians had jobs, the unemployment was 0%, all had cars, homes and savings in the National bank. Even though the communist state had major expenses (it was building roads, apartment buildings, factories, etc.), the country was getting wealthier each year.

    When the coup started, Ceausescu was abroad, negotiating with some Arab countries the establishment of the first European Bank. Imagine that! Romania was about to become a world player. Fairly rich & with a solid economy.

    Were the people unhappy?

    Yes, but not because they were poor. The social distress had to do with the people’s liberties being restrained by Ceausescu’s Police (Militia) and Secret Services.

    Also, the people had money, but there were not too many products to spend them on. Everything was limited and rationalized.

    The country was prospering at high speed, but the people were paying the price. Ceausescu was a dictator and oppressor. His intentions might have been good, but the price was too high. And that’s why the coup was successful.

    Even so, the Romanians never imagined that removing Ceausescu from power could mean what it actually meant. Most of them thought that his son, Nicu (who was very loved, especially in Sibiu) will step in his father’s place and offer more liberties to the people. That’s all the people ever hoped for, back then.

    But the Western powers had other plans. They’ve infiltrated highly trained agents to start a war from the inside. At the same time, their “diplomats” planned a “people’s revolution.” All state’s influence was working against Ceausescu.

    The secret agents working for the coup to take place were active everywhere, from those shooting civilians in the streets, to those more subtle spreading disinformation on TV and making the Army fight against the Police and the people. It was a nightmare! It is probable that not even the Army’s Chief of Staff had any clue of what was really going on.

    During the coup, there was only one thing shouted everywhere: “the terrorists”! (Please, notice the pattern).

    Nobody ever heard of terrorists or terrorism in Romania before, and most people had no idea what the word even meant. Who invented this word and for what purpose?

    The civilians received weapons from the Army and asked to call themselves “revolutionaries.” They had been informed that the terrorists are randomly shooting down civilians and that they should respond with fire without questions. Also, they had been warned that the Police was working for Ceausescu and they will shoot them at sight.

Imagine the chaos! The people were shooting each other, while the highly trained foreign agents were conducting guerrilla strikes against the army, police and the people.

A sniper shot at my father-in-law and it was a near miss. He was going home, caring groceries. There was nothing offensive about him, just a random man, arriving home from work. I went and saw the bullet holes and marks in that building. I can only imagine what he went through, knowing that his wife and daughter were in the same building. Then, the sniper begun randomly shooting through the windows of all the apartments. The people were lying on the floor, while the windows were being shuttered apart by flying bullets.

There are thousands of buildings in Romania still baring the marks of those sad days. Thousands of innocent people had been killed or wounded during the coup.
Highly trained special troops operated in Romania. They knew exactly how the Romanian armored vehicles can be taken out with ease. They clogged the exhaust pipes in some light tank models, making the exhaust smoke flood the interior and choke the soldiers inside. Those trying to escape, had been executed outside.

They’ve also infiltrated demonstrators, offering them free alcoholic beverages. It was December and most people drank to get warm. Afterwards, the angry mob was easily controllable. They’ve led them towards governmental buildings and police stations. The drunk mob brutally murdered innocent people, without even knowing why.

Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, were caught and executed by firing squad after a brief and shameful “trial”.

The judge killed himself few years later, when he finally understood that he was manipulated. Nicu Ceausescu, the dictator’s son, was arrested and convicted to prison. He died only few years later, in 1996.

Then, the Economic Hitmen have been sent to do their dirty jobs: rob Romania of its wealth.

Click to watch “The Confessions of an Economic Hitman”.

22+ years later, Romania is almost economically dead. All its industry died, thousands of huge factories had been closed, millions of workers had been fired. Many of them never found work again.

All the gold mines had been closed and the gold from the treasury moved abroad. Romania received some papers in exchange, called certificates. Fare trade, isn’t it?

American and Canadian companies are taking over Romania’s gold deposits as we speak. “Rosia Montana” is one of the oldest and largest European gold mines.

Romania was banned from exporting cereals in the EU. Other European countries received this task. As a result, agriculture also died in time – except from a handful of mammoth companies which buy their GM corn from Monsanto. I’m expecting Monsanto to knock at the door from time to time and take over the operations entirely, if they haven’t already done it – covertly.

Romania has now enormous external debt (especially towards Rothschild’s International Monetary Fund) and falling deeper in debt with each passing year. The people are against taking any more loans from the IMF, they are protesting each year – but nobody minds them!

The energetic and oil national companies had been sold to Western corporations, who raise the price of energy and gas twice a year. The price for 1 gallon of gas is $8+ in Romania, while the minimum wage is $200+/month (yes, the equivalent of 25 gallons of gas).

The salaries drop periodically, instead of raising, not even keeping up with inflation.

And this is exactly what it will happen in Libya in the years to come. The country will be looted of its fortune and the people will be left to die.

The purpose of this article is to offer a closer-to-the-truth perspective to what is happening behind the scenes and to let everyone know that there is no such thing as the “people’s revolution”, only well-planned coups.

NATO is a huge step towards the one world government, and it’s entirely controlled by the elites.

The Occupy Movement could be the first REAL, People’s Revolution. I only hope for it not to be hijacked from the inside, and turned against us. This is a big part of the secret services’ job — and they are really good at it!

By Alexander Light,;


The counter-revolution against the Deep State

The counter-revolution against the Deep State  From Inner Circle, 26 August 2016

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.  Systems theorist Buckminster Fuller.

It’s not just the most ideologically empowered nation on the planet… but also a powerful disruptor of the power of the “Deep State.”

Regular Inner Circle readers know that the Deep State and its increasing control over almost every aspect of our lives is one of the biggest themes on our radar.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, the Deep State is the “shadow government” that rules no matter who voters elect.

It’s made up of an ever-expanding circle of unelected “insiders” – from top levels of finance, industry, and government.

I’ve been tracking this story for over a year now. As part of my research, I talked to congressional-stafferturned-Deep-State-whistleblower Mike Lofgren.

You can find the full Q&A of my conversation with Lofgren here. But here’s Lofgren describing what he means by the term:

The Deep State is this hybrid association of elements within government, finance, and industry that actually governs the U.S. The term was first used in Turkey to describe a group of oligarchs, senior military, and intelligence operatives – along with organized crime – that ran the government regardless of who was formally in power. But it’s the same now in the U.S.

It’s a very slow-moving and gradual thing. Most people don’t notice the changes because they happen inside our public institutions… and out of sight. We still have voting. We still have members of Congress and so on.

Lofgren is not a household name. But he should be. Because he’s come closer than anyone else to understanding the true nature of government in the U.S. For 28 years, Lofgren – a self-described “Midwest Republican” – worked on Capitol Hill. He was a congressional staff member and a national defense analyst with top-secret clearance for the House and Senate budget committees. He was walking the corridors of power when House Speaker Newt Gingrich tried to impeach President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky “incident.” He was there when an obscure Islamic fundamentalist group known as al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in Africa. He was there when airplanes flew into the World Trade Center in 2001…and for “shock and awe” in Iraq two years later.

Lofgren has seen the inner workings of Washington up close. And his conclusion is shocking. As he describes it in his book The Deep State: [T]he United States has, over the last several decades, gradually undergone a process first identified by Aristotle and later championed by Machiavelli. It’s what journalist Edward Peter Garrett described in the 1930s as a “revolution within the form.” Our venerable institutions of government have outwardly remained the same, but they have grown more and more resistant to the popular will as they have become hardwired into a corporate and private influence network with almost unlimited cash to enforce its will.

Most people naively believe the myth that they can “change” government by pulling a lever in a polling booth once every couple of years. But they’re wrong. The shocking truth is that no matter which candidate sits in the Oval Office next, the Deep State will stay in control.

The same goes for the power structures of almost all advanced and developing nations.

Which is why this week’s dispatch is so important…


You see, there’s a counter-revolution underway – against the Deep State… Big  Government… and oppressive state power in all its forms.

It’s led by a small group of libertarians, anarchists, and freethinkers who are reimagining what a truly free and prosperous society might look like. For this week’s issue, I arranged a meeting with one of them.

I travelled to Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, to meet with Vit Jedli?ka (pronounced “Veet Yed-litchka”) – a burly, blonde, 32-year-old Czech activist.

Last April, Vit literally planted the flag of a new nation, the Free Republic of Liberland, on a small parcel of disputed land along the banks of the Danube between Balkan nations Serbia and Croatia. Liberland, Vit told me, will be a constitutional republic, founded along similar lines to the U.S. It will grant citizenship to like-minded people. And it will use a digital currency similar to Bitcoin as its national currency.

But its core mission is to protect and support the economic and personal freedom of its citizens. And in case there is any doubt about that, the Liberland motto is “To Live and Let Live.”


The welfare state fails Aboriginals yet again

The welfare state fails Aboriginals yet again  By Gary Johns, The Australian, 25 August 2016

The ACTU was there at the start of the land rights movement, supporting the walk-off by Aboriginal stockmen at Wave Hill in August 1966, 50 years ago.

And now, at the end, the ACTU is there again. I say at the end because Wave Hill never made it as an economically viable Aboriginal-run property. In fact, it is hard to find a single Aboriginal venture on Aboriginal land that is viable. Fishing trawlers, cattle, tourism, market gardens, carbon farming and myriad others have almost all failed.

The only employment that has ever been “successful” in remote Aboriginal communities is public sector and “bought” jobs. Many public sector jobs minister to people in need who would not be in need if they had a job. “Bought” jobs are those jobs created for those who would not otherwise find employment. Both types are an admission of failure.

The proof is that the commonwealth has run the Community Development Employment Projects scheme, in various guises, since 1977. It is a paint-rocks-white scheme that makes failure look like success. CDEP came about because of a decision by the Commonwealth Arbitration and Conciliation Commission in 1965, at the behest of the ACTU, to include Aboriginal workers in the Cattle Station Industry (Northern Territory) Award 1951. The decision created widespread unemployment among Aborigines in remote areas of northern Australia. The “solution” to unemployment was to grant Aboriginal people access to unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, when access was granted, the absence of realistic work prospects created a disincentive to work. Aboriginal people were paid to “sit down”.

First came equal wages, then the market sorted out the real worth of many Aboriginal workers and created unemployment. Then came sit-down money. Then came the pooling of unemployment benefits for make-work, which was CDEP. CDEP became known as “stand-up” money. Understand?

As for community development, well, that never happened. Instead came family destruction, the likes of which is reported every other day: crime, child abuse, domestic violence, alcoholism. The Abbott government rebadged CDEP as the Community Development Program. There was an interim program between CDEP and CDP, but it was the same deal, masking the failure to thrive of Aboriginal land rights.

The ACTU wants the CDP dismantled. And it is right to do so. Just as it was right to push for equal wages for Aboriginal workers in the 1960s. But the ACTU is like a stopped watch; it’s right twice (a day) but has no clue what the time is. Equal wages had unintended consequences.

Not every worker was worth his keep. Collective rights to non-tradeable land had unintended consequences. Land is worthless without a productive use. I understand that Aborigines derive a spiritual “income” from the land, but that is a matter for Aborigines, not taxpayers who prop up land rights with make-work schemes.

But the ACTU does not want to abolish CDP because it masks the failure of land rights. It wants more workers’ rights. At the announcement last week of a campaign to remove CDP, ACTU indigenous officer Kara Keys said: “This is a program which discriminates on the basis of race and has no place in a modern society.” On the latter she is so right. But when ACTU secretary Dave Oliver says, “These workers labour without the protection of federal OHS standards or workers’ compensation and earn no superannuation,” he is so wrong.

I have observed many such schemes in many communities, and I can report that there is not a lot of labour involved. This is not work, this is welfare. To pretend that welfare is work is typical of the ACTU. Bugger the unintended consequences, just make sure the “worker” gets his due. In this case, the due is a make-believe job in a non-economy. If the ACTU had its way the entire Australian economy would look like a remote Aboriginal community. No economy, but everyone getting their due and claiming compo.

The ACTU is also campaigning for recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution.

I can tell you now, Dave Oliver, it is not going to happen. It has been 10 years since John Howard promised to consider the proposition and still there is no proposal any government could possibly agree to.

Instead, we keep paying for the new CDEP scheme, and to consult Aborigines about the Constitution, only to be told Aborigines would rather have a treaty. A treaty would be like a mega workers’ compensation scheme forever.



Previous articles

Posted in Better Government | Comments Off on Socialism, bureaucracy and the nanny state

The Rise and Fall of the EU

European countries ruled the world for centuries.  Since WWII the fall from grace has accelerated.  Now it remains to be seen how Britain’s EU exit pans out.

Doug Casey On The Collapse Of The EU

doug-casey-on-the-collapse-of-the-eu  From Zerohedge, 14 October 2016

Nick Giambruno: Doug, you predicted the fall of the European Union a few years ago. What has changed since then?

Doug Casey: Well, what’s changed is that the entire situation has gotten much worse. The inevitable has now become the imminent.

The European Union evolved, devolved actually, from basically a free trade pact among a few countries to a giant, dysfunctional, overreaching bureaucracy. Free trade is an excellent idea. However, you don’t need to legislate free trade; that’s almost a contradiction in terms. A free trade pact between different governments is unnecessary for free trade. An individual country interested in prosperity and freedom only needs to eliminate all import and export duties, and all import and export quotas. When a country has duties or quotas, it’s essentially putting itself under embargo, shooting its economy in the foot. Businesses should trade with whoever they want for their own advantage.

But that wasn’t the way the Europeans did it. The Eurocrats, instead, created a treaty the size of a New York telephone book, regulating everything. This is the problem with the European Union. They say it is about free trade, but really it’s about somebody’s arbitrary idea of “fair trade,” which amounts to regulating everything. In addition to its disastrous economic consequences, it creates misunderstandings and confusion in the mind of the average person. Brussels has become another layer of bureaucracy on top of all the national layers and local layers for the average European to deal with.

The European Union in Brussels is composed of a class of bureaucrats that are extremely well paid, have tremendous benefits, and have their own self-referencing little culture. They’re exactly the same kind of people that live within the Washington, D.C. beltway.

The EU was built upon a foundation of sand, doomed to failure from the very start. The idea was ill-fated because the Swedes and the Sicilians are as different from each other as the Poles and the Irish. There are linguistic, religious, and cultural differences, and big differences in the standard of living. Artificial political constructs never last. The EU is great for the “elites” in Brussels; not so much for the average citizen.

Meanwhile, there’s a centrifugal force even within these European countries. In Spain, the Basques and the Catalans want to split off, and in the UK, the Scots want to make the United Kingdom quite a bit less united. You’ve got to remember that before Garibaldi, Italy was scores of little dukedoms and principalities that all spoke their own variations of the Italian language. And the same was true in what’s now Germany before Bismarck in 1871.

In Italy 89% of the Venetians voted to separate a couple of years ago. The Italian South Tyrol region, where 70% of the people speak German, has a strong independence movement. There are movements in Corsica and a half dozen other departments in France. Even in Belgium, the home of the EU, the chances are excellent that Flanders will separate at some point.

The chances are better in the future that the remaining countries in Europe are going to fall apart as opposed to being compressed together artificially.

And from strictly a philosophical point of view, the ideal should not be one world government, which the “elite” would prefer, but about seven billion small individual governments. That would be much better from the point of view of freedom and prosperity.

Nick Giambruno: How does the recent Brexit vote affect the future of the European Union?

Doug Casey: Well, it’s the beginning of the end. The inevitable has now become the imminent. Britain has always been perhaps the most different culture of all of those in the European Union. They entered reluctantly and late, and never seriously considered losing the pound for the euro.

You’re going to see other countries leaving the EU. The next one might be Italy. All of the Italian banks are truly and totally bankrupt at this point. Who’s going to kiss that and make it better? Is the rest of the European Union going to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to make the average Italian depositor well again? I don’t think so. There’s an excellent chance that Italy is going to get rid of the euro and leave the EU.

Nick Giambruno: Why should Americans care about this?

Doug Casey: Well, just as the breakup of the Soviet Union had a good effect for both the world at large and for Americans, the breakup of the EU should be viewed in the same light. Freeing an economy anywhere increases prosperity and opportunity everywhere. And it sets a good example. So Americans ought to look forward to the breakup of the EU almost as much as the Europeans themselves. Unfortunately, most Americans are quite insular. And Europeans are so used to socialism that they have even less grasp of economics than Americans. But it’s going to happen anyway.

Nick Giambruno: What are some investment implications?

Doug Casey: Initially there’s going to be some chaos, and some inconvenience. Conventional investors don’t like wild markets, but turbulence is actually a good thing from the point of view of a speculator. It’s a question of your psychological attitude. Understanding psychology is as important as economics. They’re the two things that make the markets what they are. Volatility is actually your friend in the investment world.

People are naturally afraid of upsets. They’re afraid of any kind of a crisis. This is natural. But it’s only during a crisis that you can get a real bargain. You have to look at the bright side and take a different attitude than most people have.

Nick Giambruno: If you position yourself on the right side of this thing, do you think you’ll be able to make some big profits on the collapse of the EU?

Doug Casey: Yes. Once the EU falls apart, there are going to be huge investment opportunities. People forget how cheap markets can become. I remember in the mid 1980s, there were three markets in the world in particular I was very interested in: Hong Kong, Belgium, and Spain. All three of those markets had similar characteristics. You could buy stocks in those markets for about half of book value, about three or four times earnings, and average dividend yields of their indices were 12–15%—individual stocks were sometimes much more—and of course since then, those dividends have gone way up. The stock prices have soared.

So I expect that that’s going to happen in the future. In one, several, many, or most of the world’s approximately 40 investable markets. Right now, however, we’re involved in a worldwide bubble in equities. It can go the opposite direction. People forget how cheap stocks can get.

I think we’re headed into very bad times. Chances are excellent you’re going to see tremendous bargains. People are chasing after stocks right now with 1% dividend yields and 30 times earnings, and they want to buy them. At some point in the future these stocks are going to be selling for three times earnings and they’re going to be yielding five, maybe ten percent in dividends. But at that point most people will be afraid to buy them. In fact, they won’t even want to know they exist at that point.

I’m not a believer in market timing. But, that said, I think it makes sense to hold fire when the market is anomalously high.

The chaos that’s building up right now in Europe can be a good thing—if you’re well positioned. You don’t want to go down with the sinking Titanic. You want to survive so you can get on the next boat taking you to a tropical paradise. But right now you’re entering the stormy North Atlantic.

A few months after the stunning Brexit vote, there’s even more turmoil ahead for the European Union… with potentially severe consequences in the currency and stock markets.

Doug Casey and his team just released a new video that reveals how a financial shock far greater than 2008 could strike America on December 4, 2016, as Italian voters decide the fate of the European Union itself. Click here to watch it now.


How the financial troika destroyed Greece’ economy

how-the-financial-troika-destroyed-greece-economy  By Michael Hudson, Counterpunch, 5 October 2016

James Galbraith’s articles and interviews collected in his book Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice trace his growing exasperation at the “troika” – the European Central Bank (ECB), IMF and EU bureaucracy – which refused to loosen their demand that Greece impoverish its economy to a degree worse than the Great Depression. The fight against Greece was, in a nutshell, a rejection of parliamentary democracy after the incoming Syriza coalition of left-wing parties won election in January 2015 on a platform of resisting austerity and privatization.

The world has seen the result: In contrast to the support given to countries with right-wing regimes, the ECB and IMF tightened their financial screws on Greece. The incoming finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis – who had been Galbraith’s faculty colleague at Austin, Texas – asked Galbraith to join him in February to help develop an alternative to the austerity being demanded. They were optimistic that reason would prevail: an awareness that the creditors’ program of “cutting wages and income without providing any relief from private debts (such as fixed mortgages) merely deepens debt burdens and forces people into bankruptcy and foreclosure.”

This book reflects Galbraith’s disappointment at how matters turned out so disastrously. In early June, a month before the July 5 referendum in which Greek voters rejected ECB-IMF demands by a heavy 61.5 percent, he thought that the government would fall if it capitulated. “So this option is not a high probability.” But that is just what did happen. Tsipras surrendered, prompting Varoufakis to resign the next day, on July 6.

A week earlier Galbraith had spelled out what seemed to be the inherent logic of the situation: Tsipras “could not yield to the conditions being demanded. So then the onus will be back on the creditors, and if they choose to destroy a European country, the crime will be on their hands to all to see.”

Tsipras did yield, and the Greece’s economy was destroyed by the Eurozone getting its way and imposing insolvency within the euro, not by forcing it out of the euro and leaving it bankrupt resorting to anti-Cuba or anti-Iran-type sanctions. Galbraith’s book presents the prosecutor’s case for what ensued. By May 3, he wrote to Varoufakis that he found “no prospect for development inside the current economic structures of the Eurozone.”

The essays in this book present Greece’s experience as an object lesson for other countries seeking to free themselves from right-wing financial control. The IMF and ECB do not even consider their destruction of Greece’s economy to be a failure. They continue to impose an austerity doctrine that was shown to be fallacious already in the 1920s.

The EU Constitution imposes debt deflation and austerity

Galbraith expressed his “epiphany” already in 2010 that a “market-based” solution was a euphemism for anti-labor austerity and a reversal of political democracy. “In a successful financial system, there must be a state larger than any market. That state must have monetary control – as the Federal Reserve does, without question, in the Untied States.” That was what many Europeans a generation ago expected – for the EU to sponsor a mixed public/private economy in the progressive 20th-century tradition. But instead of an emerging “European superstate” run by elected representatives empowered to promote economic recovery and growth by writing down debts in order to revive employment, the Eurozone is being run by the troika on behalf of bondholders and banks. ECB and EU technocrats are serving these creditor interests, not those of the increasingly indebted population, business and governments. The only real integration has been financial, empowering the ECB to override national sovereignty to dictate public spending and tax policy. And what they dictate is austerity and economic shrinkage.

In addition to a writeoff of bad debts, an expansionary fiscal policy is needed to save the eurozone from becoming a dead zone. But the EU has no unified tax policy, and money creation to finance deficit spending is blocked by lack of a central bank to monetize government deficits under control of elected officials. Europe’s central bank does not finance deficit spending to revive employment and economic growth. “Europe has devoted enormous effort to create a ‘single market’ without enlarging any state, and while pretending that the Central Bank cannot provide new money to the system.” Without monetizing deficits, budgets must be cut and the public domain sold off, with banks and bondholders in charge of resource allocation.

As long as “the market” means keeping the high debt overhead in place, the economy will be sacrificed to creditors. Their debt claims will dominate the market and, under EU and ECB rules, will also dominate the state instead of the state controlling the financial system or even tax policy.

Galbraith calls this financial warfare totalitarian, and writes that while its philosophical father is Frederick Hayek, the political forbear of this market Bolshevism is Stalin. The result is a crisis that “will continue, until Europe changes its mind. It will continue until the forces that built the welfare state in the first place rise up to defend it.”

To prevent such a progressive policy revival, the troika promotes regime change in recalcitrant economies, such as it deemed Syriza to be for trying to resist creditor commitments to austerity. Crushing Greece’s Syriza coalition was openly discussed throughout Europe as a dress rehearsal for blocking the Left from supporting its arguments. “Governments from the Left, no matter how free from corruption, no matter how pro-European,” Galbraith concludes, “are not acceptable to the community of creditors and institutions that make up the European system.”

Opposing austerity is called “contagion,” as if prosperity and rising living standards are an economic disease, not national bankruptcy being enforced by the ECB and EU bureaucracy (and the IMF). To prevent Podemos in Spain and similar parties in Portugal and Italy from mounting a recovery from eurozone austerity, these financial institutions support right-wing governments while tightening the screws on Left governments. That is what happens when central banks are made “independent” of democratic electoral politics and parliamentary control.

Galbraith’s month-by-month narrative describes how the IMF and ECB overrode Greek democracy on behalf of creditors and privatizers. They sought to undermine the Syriza government from the outset, making Greece an object lesson to deter thoughts by Podemos in Spain and similar parties in Portugal and Italy that they could resist the creditor grab to extract payment by a privatization grab and at the cost of pension funds and social spending. By contrast, conciliatory favoritism has been shown to right-wing European parties in order to keep them in power against the left.

On the surface, the troika’s “solution” – paying creditors by bleeding the economy – seems obviously self-defeating. But this seeming failure appears to be their actual aim: foreclosure on the assets of the indebted economy’s public sector under the banner of its version of R2P: Responsibility to Privatize. For Greece this means its ports, islands and tourist centers, electricity and other public utilities.

The ECB and IMF accelerated Greece’s economic collapse by demanding a rise in the VAT from 23 percent, making tourism in the islands more expensive. “The plain object of the creditors’ program is therefore not reform,” Galbraith points out. Instead of helping the economy compete, “Pension cuts, wage cuts, tax increases, and fire sales are offered up on the magical thought that the economy will recover despite the burden of higher taxes, lower purchasing power, and external repatriation of profits from privatization.” Privatized public utilities are turned into “cash cows” to enable buyers to extract monopoly rents, increasing the economy’s cost of living and doing business.

The European Union’s pro-creditor policies are “written into every European treaty from Rome to Maastricht,” overriding “the vision of ‘sustainable growth’ and ‘social inclusion’” to which they pay lip service. Reinforcing the ECB’s monetary austerity is the German constitution, imposing fiscal austerity by blocking funding of other countries’ budget deficits (except for quantitative easing to save bankers).

The financial warfare being waged by the ECB and IMF

This is not how the EU was supposed to end up. Its ideal was to put an end to the millennium of internecine European military conflict. That was fairly easy, because warfare based on armed infantry occupation was already a thing of the past by the time the EU was formed. No industrial economy today is politically able to mount the military invasion needed to occupy another country – not Germany or France, Italy or Russia. Even in the United States, the Vietnam War protests ended the military draft. Warfare in today’s world can bomb and destroy – from a distance – but cannot occupy an adversary.

The second argument for joining the EU was that it would administer social democracy against corruption and any repeat of right-wing dictatorships. But that has not happened. Just the opposite: Although the European Union treaties pay lip service to democracy, they negate monetary sovereignty. The IMF, ECB and EU bureaucracy have acted together to collect the bad debt left over from their reckless 2010 bailout of French, German, Dutch and other bondholders. In behaviour reminiscent of Allied demands for unpayably-high German reparations in the 1920s, their demands for payment are based on predatory junk economic theory claiming that foreign debt of any magnitude can be paid by imposing deep enough austerity and privatization sell-offs.

So the arena of conflict and rivalry has shifted from the military to the financial battlefield. Along with the IMF and ECB, central banks across the world are notorious for opposing democratic authority to tax and regulate economies. The financial sector’s policy of leaving money and credit allocation to banks and bondholders calls for blocking public money creation. This leaves the financial sector as the economy’s central planner.

The euro’s creation can best be viewed as a legalistic coup d’état to replace national parliaments with a coterie of financial managers acting on behalf of creditors, drawn largely from the ranks of investment bankers. Tax policy, regulatory and pension policies are assigned to these unelected central planners. Empowered to override sovereign self-determination and national referendums on economic and social policy, their policy prescription is to impose austerity and force privatization selloffs that are basically foreclosures on indebted economies. Galbraith rightly calls this financial colonialism.

The asset grab promoted by the IMF and ECB is incompatible with reviving Greece or other southern European economies (not to speak of the Baltics and Ukraine). The theory is unchanged from that imposed on Germany after World War I – the theories of Jacques Rueff, Bertil Ohlin and the Austrians, controverted by Keynes, Harold Moulton and others at the time.[1] Their victorious role in this debate has been expurgated from today’s public discourse and even from academia. What passes for economic orthodoxy today is an unreformed (and incorrigible) austerity economics of the 1920s, pretending that an economy’s debts can all be paid simply by lowering wage levels, taxing consumers more, making workers (and ultimately, businesses and government) poorer, and selling off the public domain (mainly to foreigners from the creditor nations).

Galbraith contrasts economists to doctors, whose professional motto is “Do no harm.” Economists cannot avoid harming economies when their priority is to save bankers and bondholders from losses – by bleeding economies to pay creditors. What the IMF calls “stabilization programs” impose a downward spiral of debt deflation and widening fiscal deficits. This forces countries to sell off their land and mineral rights, public buildings, electric utilities, phone and communications systems, roads and highways at distress prices.

At first glance the repeated “failure” of austerity prescriptions to “help economies recover” seems to be insanity – defined as doing the same thing again and again, hoping that the result may be different. But what if the financial planners are not insane? What if they simply seek professional success by rationalizing politics favored by the vested interests that employ them, headed by the IMF, central bankers and the policy think tanks and business schools they sponsor? The effects of pro-creditor policies have become so constant over so many decades that it now must be seen as deliberate, not a mistake that can be fixed by pointing out a more realistic body of economics (which already was available in the 1920s).

Given the eurozone’s mindset, Galbraith asks whether Greece may be better off going it alone, away from the IMF/ECB “hospice” and its financial quack doctors. Saving the economy requires rejecting the body of creditor demands for austerity by central planners at the IMF, ECB and other international institutions.

Any sovereign nation has the right to avoid being impoverished by creditors who have lent sums far in excess of the amount that can be paid without being forced to engage in privatization selloffs at distress prices. Such demands are akin to military attack, having a similar objective: seizure of the indebted economy’s land, natural resources and public infrastructure, and control over its government.

These demands are at odds with parliamentary democracy and national self-determination. Yet they are written into the way the eurozone is constructed. That is why withdrawal from the current financial regime is a precondition for recovery of economic sovereignty. It must start with control over the money supply and the tax system, followed by control over public infrastructure and the pricing of its services.

The future of Europe’s Left

What led governments (although by no means all voters) to accept a supra-national pan-European authority was the trauma of World War II. It seemed that nation-states were prone to making war, but a United States of Europe would not fight – at least, not internally. But the authority that has been put in place is financial, pro-creditor and anti-labor, empowered to impose austerity and turn the public domain to into privatized monopolies.

The EU cannot be “fixed” by marginal reforms. Greece’s treatment shows that it must be recast – or else, countries will start leaving in order to restore parliamentary democracy and retain what remains of their sovereignty. The financial sector’s ideal is for economies centrally planned by bankers, leaving no public infrastructure unappropriated. Privatized economies are to be financialized into opportunities to extract monopoly rent.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, posing a question today much like that of the 1930s: Will the alternative to austerity, debt deflation and the resulting economic breakdown be resolved by a pro-labor socialist alternative, or will it lead to a victory by anti-European right-wing parties?

What makes the situation different today is the remarkable extent to which today’s European parties calling themselves Socialist, Social Democratic or Labour have accepted privatization and opposition to budget deficits. This shift reverses what they urged at their origins more than a century ago. So the problem is not only to resist the right wing of the political spectrum; it is to reconstruct a real European left.

Galbraith’s book has important implications for the policies needed to save the eurozone from being turned into a dead zone along the lines of Latvia’s disastrous oligarchic “success” story. (Drastic emigration and declining after-tax wages are the “Baltic Miracle” in a nutshell.)

If European Left does not succeed in creating an alternative to eurozone austerity, right-wing nationalists will lead a withdrawal campaign. Golden Dawn in Greece, France’s National Front, along with Hungarian, Austrian and Polish nationalist parties and Britain’s UKIP are moving to fill the vacuum left by the absence of a socialist alternative to financialization under ECB and IMF dirigisme.


Why The EU Is Doomed

why-the-eu-is-doomed  By Alasdair Macleod via The Mises Institute, 19 September 2016


We are accustomed to looking at Europe’s woes in a purely financial context. This is a mistake, because it misses the real reasons why the EU will fail and not survive the next financial crisis. We normally survive financial crises, thanks to the successful actions of central banks as lenders of last resort. However, the origins and construction of both the the euro and the EU itself could ensure the next financial crisis commences in the coming months, and will exceed the capabilities of the ECB to save the system.

It should be remembered that the European Union was originally a creation of US post-war foreign policy. The priority was to ensure there was a buffer against the march of Soviet communism, and to that end three elements of the policy towards Europe were established. First, there was the Marshall Plan, which from 1948 provided funds to help rebuild Europe’s infrastructure. This was followed by the establishment of NATO in 1949, which ensured American and British troops had permanent bases in Germany. And lastly, a CIA sponsored organisation, the American Committee on United Europe was established to covertly promote European political union.

It was therefore in no way a natural European development. But in the post-war years the concept of political union, initially the European Coal and Steel Community, became fact in the Treaty of Paris in 1951 with six founding members: France, West Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy. The ECSC evolved into the EU of today, with an additional twenty-one member states, not including the UK which has now decided to leave.

With the original founders retaining their national characteristics, the EU resembles a political portmanteau, a piece of assembled furniture, each component retaining its original characteristics. After sixty-five years, a Frenchman is still a staunch French nationalist. Germans are characteristically German, and the Italians remain delightfully Italian. Belgium is often referred to as a non-country, and is still riven between Walloons and the Flemish. As an organisation, the EU lacks national identity and therefore political cohesion.

This is why the European Commission in Brussels has to go to great lengths to assert itself. But it has an insurmountable problem, and that is it has no democratic authority. The EU parliament was set up to be toothless, which is why it fools only the ignorant. With power still residing in a small cabal of nation states, national powerbrokers pay little more than lip-service to the Brussels bureaucracy.

The relationship between national leaders and the European Commission has been deliberately long-term, in the sense that loss of sovereignty is used to gradually subordinate other EU members into the Franco-German line. The driving logic has been to make the European region a protected trade area in Franco-German joint interests, and to protect them from free markets.

It was not easy to find the necessary compromise. Since the Second World War, France has been strongly protectionist over her own culture, insisting that the French only buy French goods. Germany’s success was rooted in savings, which encouraged industrial investment, leading to strong exports. These two nations with a common border had, and still have, very different values, but they managed to conceive and set up the European Central Bank and the euro.

In Germany, the sound-money men in the Bundesbank lost out to industrial interests, which sought to profit from a weaker currency. This was actually in line with her political preferences, and it was the political class that controlled the relationship with France. In France the integrationists, politicians again, defeated the industrialists, who sought to insulate their home markets from German competition.

When a common currency was first mooted, two future problems were ignored. The first was how would the other states joining the euro adapt to the loss of their national currencies, and the second was how would the UK, with her Anglo-Saxon market-based culture adapt to a more European model. It wasn’t long before the latter issue was met head-on, with the withdrawal of sterling from the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the forerunner of the euro, in September 1992.

The euro was eventually born at the turn of the century. The Franco-German compromise led to the appointment of a Frenchman, Jean-Claude Trichet, as the ECB’s second president. All was well, because the abandonment of national currencies and the gradual acceptance of the euro meant that states in the Eurozone were able to borrow more cheaply in euros than they ever could in their own national currencies.

Bond risk was measured against German bunds, traditionally the lowest yielding bonds in Europe. It was not long before the spread between bunds and other Eurozone debt was commonly seen as a profitable opportunity, instead of a reflection of relative risk. European banks, insurance companies and pension funds all benefited from the substantial rise in the prices of bonds issued by peripheral EU members, and invested accordingly. In turn, these borrowers were only too willing to supply this demand by issuing enormous quantities of debt, in contravention of the Maastricht Treaty. Bank credit expanded as well, leaving the banking system highly geared.

The control mechanism for this explosion in borrowing was meant to be the Exchange Stability and Growth Pact, agreed in Maastricht in 1993. This laid down five rules, of which two concern us. Member states were bound to keep their national budget deficits to a maximum of 3% of GDP, and national government debt was limited to 60% of GDP. Neither Germany nor France qualified on the debt criteria, without rigging their national accounts, and the only reason that deficits came within the Pact was a mixture of dodgy accounting and fortuitous timing of the economic cycle. The control mechanism was never enforced.

So from the outset, no nation had any sense of responsibility towards the new currency. The rules were ignored and the euro became a gravy-chain for all member governments, spectacularly brought to public attention by the failure of Greece.

The Eurozone’s banking system, incorporating the national central banks and the ECB, bound together in a bizarre settlement system called TARGET, became the means for member nations to buy German goods on credit. Very good for Germany, you may say, but the problem was that the credit was supplied by Germany herself. It is the same as lending money to the buyer of your business in a rigged transaction. This flaw in the system’s construction is now a rumbling volcano ready to blow at any moment.

The Germans want their money back, or at least don’t want to write it off. The debtors cannot pay, and need to borrow more money just to survive. Neither side wishes to face reality. It started with Ireland, then Cyprus, followed by Greece and Portugal. These are the smaller creditors, which Germany, led by its Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, managed to crush into debtor submission and are now economic zombies. The real problem comes with Italy, which is also failing and has a debt-to-GDP ratio estimated to be over 133% and rising. If Italy goes, it will be followed by Spain and France. Herr Schäuble cannot force these major creditors into line so easily, because at this stage the whole Eurozone banking system will be in deep trouble, as will the German government itself. German savers are also becoming acutely aware that they will pick up the bill.

The first line of defense, as always, will be for the ECB as lender of last resort to keep the banks afloat. The only way it can do this is to accelerate the printing of euros and to monopolise Eurozone debt markets. Whether or not the ECB can hold the currency with all these liabilities on board its own balance sheet, and for how long, remains to be seen.

For the moment, the euro stands there like a Goliath, seemingly invincible. It represents the anti-free-market European establishment, which no one has dared to challenge. This surely is the underlying reason the ECB can impose negative interest rates and get away with it. But serious cracks are appearing. First we had Brexit, likely to be followed by other small states wanting out. The Italian banking crisis is almost certain to come to a head soon, and an Italian referendum on the constitution next month is also an important hurdle to be overcome. The politicians are in panic mode, reassuring everyone there is nothing wrong more integration and a new army won’t cure.

Meanwhile, the overbearing attitude of the European Commission and the refugee crisis are undermining public support for the status quo. Angela Merkel, hitherto regarded as invincible, has lost her public support in Germany. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National and who wants France to leave the EU, led the opinion polls recently for France’s next President, due to be elected next year. The strongmen of Europe are on the back foot.

All the elements for a mighty political and economic smash are now there. Whether or not it will be the trigger for, or itself be triggered by external events remains to be seen. Either way, the Eurozone’s crisis time-line now appears to be measured in months.

The market effect, besides being a severe shock to all markets, is likely to be two-fold. Firstly, international flows will sell down the euro in favour of the dollar. Given the euro’s weighting in the dollar index, this will be a major disruption for all currency markets. Secondly, Eurozone residents with bank deposits are likely to increasingly seek refuge in physical gold, as signs of their currency’s impending collapse emerge, because there is nowhere else for them to go.

Whichever way one looks at it, it is increasingly difficult to accept any other outcome than a complete collapse of this ill-found political construction, originally promoted in US interests by a CIA-sponsored organisation. The euro, being dependent on political cohesion instead of original market demand, will simply cease to be money, somewhat rapidly.


Previous articles

Posted in The Rise and Fall of the EU | Comments Off on The Rise and Fall of the EU

Some alternative versions of science and history

This new post provides scientific and historic information that you mostly will not read in official sources.  You may wonder why ‘they’ are keeping it a secret? Better to evaluate it objectively yourself – but you’ll need to keep an open mind and ignore a life-time of indoctrination.

Does Mankind’s Forbidden History Holds the Answer for the Missing Link?

mankinds-forbidden-history-holds-the-answer-for-the-missing-link  By Jeff Roberts, 30 September 2016

Note: the original article can be viewed at

It is perhaps the most convoluted puzzle to ever exist, a timeline which pits some of today’s most dominant dogmas, whether scientific or theological, in an unrelenting war against one another.

The history of human civilization and evolution. Today most would refute the Christian story of Genesis, dubbing it a fictional parable clouded by fantasy and nonsense.

Infamous proponents of Evolution Theory or natural selection, such as Richard Dawkins, are keen on discrediting the creationist theory, yet even with the powerful backing of the science community evolutionists fall short to provide us with the proper narrative that explains our leap from Homo-erectus (our ape-like ancestors) to Homo-sapiens (modern man). The missing link – our biggest conundrum.

Today there exists many alternative theories that aim to explain mankind’s speedy evolution. The Ancient Astronaut Theory is perhaps one of the most controversial of the bunch.

This theory takes researchers back in time to the cradle of civilization in the Middle-East, the ancient land of Mesopotamia. The Sumerian Cuneiform tablets, uncovered in the 17th century, provide modern man with a new understanding of our history.

This lost knowledge has been slow to make its way into mainstream thought and is just now beginning to air on television on both the History and Discovery Channels.

Accurately decoding the complicated language of the past has taken archaeologists many decades, but fortunately today these ancient scriptures have come to light for all the public to view.

Was there an extra-terrestrial presence in ancient times which seeded modern man?

Access to scripts such as the Book of Enoch, the Nag Hamadi Gospels, the Book of Jubilees, among other historical texts help to broaden our knowledge base relative to the writings in the Canonical Bible; many of these documents predate the Canonical Bible by thousands of years, shedding light on the origins and influences of the familiar stories told therein having an immense influence on Western thought.

Many would be shocked to discover the great Deluge hero Noah was actually a Sumerian King. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the longest known stories involving the King of a Sumerian city called Uruk, Noah is visited by a King and told of the coming cataclysm, the great flood.

Sadly, the funding for early archaeological inquiries was closely controlled and channeled by early church authorities, in particular the Roman Catholic Church.

A mandate was issued to fund only the archaeological explorations that perpetuated the story told in the canonical Bible, established by the same institution at the Council of Nicea, 343 CE.

Due to the majority who were uneducated in the past, the task of knowing the truth was often delegated to authorities.

Fortunately, today, knowledge and information distribution is rampant among the internet, and the power is now left in our hands as the efforts of past decoders is finally being disseminated to the world.

Mankind’s forbidden history: Clay tablets, dating 2000 years before the Canonical Bible, from Ancient Mesopotamia, tell the story of the Anunnaki — an ET species of humanoids who arrived on Earth in flying ships and genetically modified the human species

When one realizes that the God from the Old Testament Yahweh, was none other than the local deity of the Sumerian city of Ur, Enlil, the truth is revealed. Enlil and his various relatives were venerated as gods in various temples from Nineveh to Assur to the Sumerian city of Ur to name just a few.

Similarly, his brother Enki and his children Nannar and Innana also had temples in prominent cultural and trade portals within the region. More importantly, Enlil was not acting alone, but rather in consort with others referred to as the Anunnaki.

Enlil and his brother, Enki, are mentioned in the Genesis and the more historical Clay Tablets as participating in genetic trials to produce a primitive worker, Homo sapiens.

The Sumerian records reveal that “Adam” and “Eve” were not created by “God”,
but rather they were genetically engineered by an advanced race
of extra-terrestrials, called the Anunnaki.

A very detailed account is provided of a clinical trial that results in the archetype for the human race, “Adam,” being birthed. The trial was conducted by Enlil’s half-sister, Ninmah, and his half-brother Enki, in an African laboratory.

The historical records appeal to even the most scrutinizing scientist who readily recognized the threshold of knowledge required to discuss a topic such as genetic engineering in a document almost 5000 years old which provides a more detailed account of the creation of man, one that makes sense technically and historically versus the précis version provide by the Bible, although in many cases complementary.

This would perhaps explain the age of Noah, who was said to be 600 years old at the time of the great flood. Noah was the son of a “deity” according to the Bible. Could this father “deity” really be an extra-terrestrial being which gave rise to Noah’s lengthy lifespan?

Various deities in Sumerian and Egyptian records had also known as (AKA) names which seemed to span long periods of time and were found throughout various ancient texts. For example, the Akkadian god Sin was also known as the moon god Nannar, son of Enlil.

His sister, Inanna also sported the symbol of the crescent moon and had temples throughout Mesopotamia. She was known as Ishtar to the Akkadians.

Interestingly, many deities from other cultures such as the Greeks and Egyptians
were alternate versions of original Sumerian “gods”.
The Egyptian goddess Ishtar was really the Sumerian deity Inanna,
who according to Sumerian text was a high ranking member of the Anunnaki.

The Greek historian Herodotus lived in the 5th century BCE and hailed from Ionia; he delineated the Egyptian civilization into three dynasties and the model is still used by Egyptologists today.

Mantheo, the Egyptian priest-historian agrees with the three dynasties, except adds one more dynasty which was ruled by the “gods” alone.

He states the first dynastic rulers of Egyptian gods ruled for 12 300 years [1]. It is interesting to note that in the Sumerian texts, Enki was assigned the regions of Egypt and Africa by his father Anu, on or before 3760 BCE.

It just so happens that the Jewish calendar, whose origins are from the Sumerian city of Nippur, begins its count in 3760 BCE as well.

The two royal Anunnaki brothers held animosity for one another,
causing ancient wars often referred to as the “great wars in heaven”
in the Christian dogma.

The Sumerians claimed that all aspects of civilization were taught to them by the deities that were worshiped in the temples of Mesopotamia.

Detailed knowledge about the Earth’s orbital plane, tilt axis, spherical shape, and precession behavior of its equinox were known by the Sumerian deities, who were also credited for the construction of the Zodiac.

6,000 years old Sumerian cylindrical seal shows an accurate depiction of our solar system.
Modern science didn’t knew this until very recently. Other texts describe the colors of
Uranus and Neptune, which modern science has only very recently discovered.

Contrast this detailed level of knowledge in Sumer with that possessed in Europe during the Middle-Ages.

Scientists and church authorities in Europe were at odds whether the Earth was round or flat while the people of Sumeria and the surrounding region had advance mathematics, metallurgy, law codes, and produced many civilization first inventions and advanced achievements. [2]

The correlation between the God of the Old Testament and the Sumerian god are apparent; the Sumerian storm God, Enlil, can be considered the God of wrath and vengeance in the Old Testament.

When discussing religious truth, there is what the ruling party or superpower believes and what the subordinated cultures believe which is given a derogatory label as pagan or occult.

An example of this is taking place and manifesting presently in the Middle East where religious factions representing Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are waging war in the ancient land of Canaan, near Mount Megiddo located south of Israel. Warring factions whose genealogy originates from Sumer are still in conflict today.

The devotees of Enlil, AKA Yahweh the God of the Old Testament, stand toe to toe with the followers of Enki, still at odds with each other of the domination of the Earth.

Could the conflicts involving the countries of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Israel be a result of the past wars that took place between the “gods” Enlil and Enki and their offspring as written about in “War of Gods and Men” by Zecharia Sitchin?

According to Sumerologists, the term AN.UNNA.KI literally is interpreted as those who from “heaven to Earth came.” The key point to note early on is the affiliation of the term “heaven” with the claimed planet of Anunnaki origin, namely Nibiru as detailed in “The 12th Planet” by Sitchin.

Additionally, from the list of characters detailed as “deities” in Mesopotamian literature we know that the head of the Anunnaki council of 12 was chaired by Anu, the father of the two key players and half-brothers Enlil and Enki.

NI.BI.RU is composed from the now digitized cuneiform script, listed in Unicode as 1224C, 12249, and 12292. Thus, a more accurate interpretation of the word Anunnaki is those who from Anu to the Earth came or were sent.

Equating the planet Nibiru with the word Heaven, as used in the Bible, is an important detail when re-examining prayers like “Our father who art in Heaven…,” shining a whole new light on who the Father in Heaven actually was, namely Anu (ruler of the Anunnaki and father of Enlil and Enki). Thus, the prayers must have originated from Anu’s extra-terrestrial children on Earth.

What was the reason the Anunnaki left Nibiru to come to Earth? According to Sitchin and other authors on the subject, Nibiru, located beyond Pluto, is trapped in a 3600 year retrograde elliptical orbit around our Sun.

According to Sumerian maps and reports from 1983 IRAS Naval Observatory by Dr. Harrington, discovery of a large planet in the region Nibiru was reported to reside near where the Sumerians indicated, beyond Pluto.[8] In short, the Anunnaki home planet is real and inbound to perihelion circa 1400 years from now.

Brown dwarf planets, as we know, do not receive significant solar radiation to keep the surface temperature habitable. The atmosphere on Nibiru was generated either artificially or from gases and released steam from the geothermal heated planet.

According to Sitchin’s published history timeline [6] approximately 450,000 years ago, life on Nibiru was facing extinction due to a deteriorating atmosphere and the subsequent exposure to radiation, especially at close Perihelion with the Sun.

One of the leaders of Nibiru traveled inwards and landed on Earth, discovering Earth’s surplus of gold. Because of their advancements in technology, the Anunnaki could use gold to save the failing atmosphere of Nibiru by dispersing the ionized particles into the planet’s atmosphere.

“Tree of Life”, depicted an object which closely
resembles the Egyptian sun-disk. This ancient symbol has many theorized meanings,
including the Sun and enlightened knowledge held and passed down
by the royal lineage for millennia.

Anu and his two sons Enlil and Enki eventually came to excavate Earth for the gold as well, however, Enlil and Enki kept their distance due to a rivalry. According to Niburian inheritance rules, Enlil was the rightful heir due to his position as son of Anu and Anu’s Sister.

Enki was only son of Anu, his mother wasn’t of royal blood. The female contribution to genetic material includes mitochondrial DNA which the male does not. Enki was assigned mining operation in Africa, Enlil in Mesopotamia, and a granddaughter named Inanna was given the Indus Valley region. The division took place and was finalized in 3760 BCE.

To increase efficiency, the higher ranking members of the Anunnaki brought several subservient workers to help with gold mining labor (known as Watchers or Igigi). The Igigi worked hard for some time, but inevitably grew tiresome of their slave conditions and revolted against the Anunnaki.

This forced the Anunnaki to establish a new plan, one that developed a hybrid being, a primitive worker, to replace the Igigi gold diggers. The Homo-sapiens.

The Formation of Our Solar System According to Sumerian Text

The following is a summary of the formation of our solar system according to the Sumerian epoch, Enuma Elish. According to the text, told in an allegory of celestial warriors, ten planets composed our solar system.

Earth was not yet formed, as it was then part of a larger planet called Tiamut, which eventually crashed into Nibiru during the initial formation of the planet’s orbits, leaving behind an immense trail of debris from which the Earth formed, along with the asteroid belt.

During this cataclysm the mass of the forming Earth also captured Nibiru’s moon. It is theorized that this initial disaster transferred the original seeds of life to Earth, a form of accidental Panspermia.

The significance of the Sumerian’s Epic of Creation specifies one additional planet in our solar system, the Anunnaki’s home planet Nibiru, who’s aphelion is positioned  beyond Pluto in a 3600 year retrograde orbit around the Sun.

Dr. Robert S. Harrington, chief of the U.S. Naval Observatory used an infra-red satellite, IRAS, to locate a large planetary body which was causing wobbles in the orbital paths of Uranus and Neptune.

The IRAS produced results indicating a large brown dwarf, four times larger than the size of Earth, had been located without question. Harrington and Van Flandern of the Naval Observatory, published  their findings and opinion that a tenth planet had been located in our solar system, even calling it an intruder planet. [3]

Harrington met with Sitchin to correlate the IRAS findings with the Babylonian Epic of Creation, the Enuma Elish. Given the evidence reported by IRAS, other space probes like Pioneer 10 and 11, Voyager, and the corroborating orbital path, planet size, and retrograde characteristics of the tenth planet, Harrington agreed with Sitchin that it was Nibiru. [3]

As so, the passage of a tenth planet the magnitude of Nibiru between Mars and Jupiter would certainly have a noticeable impact every 3600 years.

With this in mind, it is highly probable that Nibiru’s passage may be responsible for pole shifts and reversals, changes in the Earth’s precession about its axis, and potentially dangerous meteors and space debris drug along from the asteroid belt inbound to Perihelion.

Could Nibiru’s Perihelion 3,600 year orbit be the cause of the great cataclysms discussed in ancient texts?

Unusual artifacts found around the world, those that seem to contradict the know abilities of the civilization under analysis, are not hard to find. Examples include hieroglyphs from the Egyptian temple of Abydos, depicting rockets, airplanes, submarines, and even an advanced helicopter.

There is also an Iraqi battery find, precision stone masonry and architecture using megalithic stones. Of all the material accessible to a culture, why use the most difficult material as possible? Massive 1000 ton blocks.

Findings from around the world to include model airplanes, incredibly sophisticated solar and lunar temples aligned to solstice and equinox alike, along with tens of thousands of advanced beings teaching civilizing technologies to indigenous peoples points overwhelmingly to the fact that the Anunnaki were here on Earth.

Sitchin was instrumental in getting the Sumerian details about the Anunnaki records for the world to see. It has taken over 100 years for the information to be accepted thus far. Tablets are now digitized for translation speed and accuracy. [4]

An important point to mention is that the Sumerian flood account was clearly copied and modified to create the Genesis account, written by Hebrew priests being held captive in Babylon, where they had access to the true story of the great flood but chose to placate Enlil as their chosen monotheistic ancient astronaut god.

After all, they were scared to death of Enlil’s wrath. Genesis 6 describes the background scene to the great flood, leaving out all references to the other members of the Anunnaki council in the Torah narrative.

According to Sumerian records, the wrathful “God” in the Christian Epic “Genesis”
was in fact an Anunnaki king named Enlil, who was weary of the his brother Enki’s
genetic creation of mankind. Enlil worried that humanity would grow and eventually
revolt against him, and so, Enlil ordered the destruction of
mankind by disease and natural disasters.

Genesis 6:1-8 (NIV)

‘When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord.’

Enlil (God in the Hebrew Genesis) did not create man, but rather, his half-brother Enki and their sister Ninmah were more so involved in the genetic manipulation, as evidenced in the Atrahasis, predating the Genesis account by 1700 years.

Enlil apparently wiped out man because of their incessant noise, although this motive seems bleak, and considering the animosity between Enlil and Enki, one must only consider that Enlil’s motive behind wiping out mankind had something to do with the fact that Homo sapiens were seeds of Enki and thus had the potential to rise up against Enlil.

Enlil was a ghost writer of the Bible, and consequently the truth was distorted to benefit the latter.

Furthermore, the “plant of knowledge of good and evil”, the “forbidden fruit”, was present in Enki’s first outpost city of Eridu.

Enlil (AKA Jehovah/God) tells Adapa (Adam) in Eridu’s Garden of Eden that if he eats the fruit he will die. Enki counteracts this lie and tells Adapa he will surely not die but instead become “like one of us, the gods”.

Thus, there seems to be a transformational effect produced by this plant that changes human consciousness. In any event, Enki tells the truth and is demonized and symbolized as a snake, while Enlil lies, and promotes himself as God.

This lie, the fact that Adam did not die but rather became aware of his nakedness, attests to not want the plant of the knowledge of good and evil consumed. It was about controlling the access to higher consciousness, frowned upon by Enlil.

Mankind was Enki’s proud creation with the help of his relative Ninharsag, which successfully alleviated the Anunnaki’s toils of gold mines just as he promised. Enlil said he was tired of man’s noise, and wanted Enki to release some form of disease to wipe them out.

Of course, Enki defied his brother and offered guidance and protection of man. Enlil continued to order the death of the Homo sapiens, and afflicted man with sickness, headaches, and other disease. [7]

To finalize the death of man, Enlil orders Enki to conjure up a great flood. Enki refuses, and the tension continues to build between the two brothers.

Although the Anunnaki had the technological means to manipulate the weather, it is unclear whether the great flood to come was caused by the Anunnaki themselves or by the gravitational forces wrought by Nibiru’s passing of Earth, enroute to a 3600 year solar perihelion.

Regardless of the cause, Enlil took credit to establish his perceived power to punish. Hence the correlation to the Old Testament’s God of Wrath and Enlil’s genocidal attributes.

Before the pole shift, Enki warned one of his sons, Ziusudra, about the coming disaster,
helping him create a boat atop a mountain.
The Biblical tale of Noah was taken from the Sumerian record.

Enki decided to modify an oath made to withhold knowledge of the impending watery disaster from the people, and instructs his son Atrahasis to build a boat. Enki helps Atrahasis relocate the boat to Mr. Ararat.

Also important to note, the idea that Noah housed a number of animal species on the boat is a misconception. It was animal DNA that was collected and saved. [7]

Thus, Atrahasis is the biblical Noah. Also noted, Ninharsag is later to be called “Isis” in ancient Egypt.

Engineering Humans

According to Sumerian records, one of Enki’s sons, Thoth, was the creator of and key proponent of mankind becoming the “Sons of God” through the awakening of the energy bodies (chakras) and subsequent consciousness, which he designed to be sensitive to the various frequencies affiliated with the radial distance and frequencies caused by a spherical resonator, i.e., the Earth.

One can read the Emerald Tablets to get a sense of the advanced energy knowledge Thoth possessed. Also, as evidenced by his staff the Caduceus, he was an adept geneticist.

Lawrence Gardner in his pre-eminent book Genesis of the Grail Kings, discusses the meaning of the ancient symbol associated with Thoth. Knowledge of energy, matter, and the human pineal glandwere at play as a function of human consciousness connected to DNA.

Enki designed primitive workers with highly scientific abilities: genetic functional mappings with a human energy body composed of 7 chakras. The chakras provide access to an evolutionary means that allow mankind to continue on its path of conscious expansion.

These seven quantized energy states were intentionally designed by Enki providing mankind an interface for future evolution of consciousness.

Enki did not seem comfortable accepting the concept of slavery versus creating a primitive worker that just got a genetic jumpstart with the potential of becoming one of the gods. To the Anunnaki, the mechanism of evolution of consciousness was highly classified.

Could the Sumerian Narrative be the Answer?

Extensive, detailed, and controversial, the Sumerian Creation Epic stands as both an opponent and an adversary to theories of modern science as well as today’s most prominent religious doctrines, a subject of volatile discourse.

These ancient writings help to broaden our knowledge of the origin of mankind while challenging the well-established account told from the Bible.

The Ancient Astronaut Theory may test the beliefs of the majority, as depictions and dramatizations of extra-terrestrial beings in mainstream culture have stifled people’s understanding of the latter, yet one cannot deny the enigma that surrounds the innovations and knowledge that the Sumerians possessed.

Moreover, evolution’s biggest puzzle has yet to be completed – the miraculous leap from Homo-erectus to Homo-sapien. However, the Sumerians offer detailed scientific clarification on this matter.

The fact that numerous indigenous cultures world-wide built monuments which looked to worship the sky, and shared similar stories of “gods” ascending from the “heavens” should beg the question of an extra-terrestrial presence during those times.

There is an uncanny correlation between the stories and knowledge-base of the ancient cultures and the timeline in which they acquired a deeper understanding of astrology, technology, biology, and spirituality, subjects which only gained proper comprehension in the last few centuries.

The Sumerian records stand as one of mankind’s most important collections of history to date. With proper analysis, these writings not only offer insight into our humble beginnings, but they also offer answers about our ultimate fate as human beings.

By Jeff Roberts | References:

1. Clark, Gerald. The Anunnaki of Nibiru: Mankind’s Forgotten Creators, Enslavers, Destroyers, and Hidden Architects of the New World Order (Book).
2. Sitchin, Zecharia. The Earth Chronicles (Book).
3. Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, University of Texas, 2003.
4. Freer, Neil. The Anunnaki and the Myth of a 12th Planet. 2006,
5. Roug, Louise, Digitizing Cuneiform, LA Times,
6. Chew, Feeland. Zecharia Sitchin and a New Synthesis.


Lockheed Executive talks about Black Budgets and the Secret Space Travel Program

lockheed-executive-about-black-budgets-and-the-secret-space-travel-program from 16 September 2016

It’s called quantum entanglement, it’s extremely fascinating and counter to what we believe to be the known scientific laws of the universe, so much so that Einstein himself could not wrap his head around it. 

Although it’s called “quantum entanglement,” though Einstein referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”

Recent research has taken quantum entanglement out of the theoretical realm of physics, and placed into the one of verified phenomena.

An experiment devised by the Griffith University’s Centre for Quantum Dynamics, led by Professor Howard Wiseman and his team of researchers at the university of Tokyo, recently published a paper in the journal Nature Communications confirming what Einstein did not believe to be real: the non-local collapse of a particle’s wave function. (source), (source), and this is just one example of many.

They did this by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, and testing whether measurement of it in one laboratory would actually cause a change in the local quantum state in the other laboratory.

In doing so, researchers were able to verify the entanglement of the split single photon. Researchers have since replicated this experiment over and over again, with results of entanglement seen at kilometres of distance.

Below is a great visual depiction of what quantum entanglement from the film, “What The Bleep Do We Know.”

“Space is just the construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects” – Dr. Quantum

Sure, there are a lot of philosophies regarding what all of this stuff actually means, but, as Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher puts it, it’s a pre-curser to realizing that everything is connected, and that everything in the universe is one. What happens in what we call reality, is effecting something else in that same reality, it’s all “touching.”  (source)

What’s happening here is that, either we are witnessing the transfer of ‘information’ at a speed far greater than the speed of light, or even better, something completely instantaneous.

If all points in space are connected, that means vast distances between places are simply an illusion. Furthermore, quantum entanglement challenges Einsteins theory of relativity, but theories are developed to be tweaked and changed. Unfortunately, our world is plagued with secrecy, and you can learn more about that in an article about the black budget linked at the bottom of this article.

The Lockheed Executives Comments On Space Travel

Rich was the second director of Lockheed Skunkwork’s from 1975-1991. He’s been called the Father of Stealth, having overseen the development of the stealth fighter, the F-117A nighthawk. Before his death, Rich made several shocking open statements about the reality of UFOs and extraterrestrials.

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do it.” (1)

“We now have technology to take ET home. No it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars.” (1)

“There are two types of UFOs — the ones we build and the ones ‘they’ build.” (1)

Where Quantum Entanglement Comes In

When Rich was asked how UFO propulsion worked, he said, “Let me ask you. How does ESP work?” The questioner responded with, “All points in time and space are connected?” Rich then said, “That’s how it works!”

Interesting to think about, isn’t it? Perhaps the vast distances that exist between planets, solar systems and more isn’t really as much of a barrier as we thought it was.

What Are The Sources For These Quotes?

One of the sources is aerospace journalist, James Goodall, who wrote for publications such as Jane’s Defense Weekly, Aviation Week and Space Technology, and Interavia.

He is an accomplished speaker specializing in the history, development, and operations of the world’s only Mach 3 capable, manned air breathing aircraft, the SR-71 family of aircraft. (1) (source), (source), (source)

He is also an author, as well as the Associate Curator at the Pacific Aviation Meseum, HI. He was also the restoration manager at the Museum of Flight in Paine Field, Everett, WA.

Goodall interviewed many from the classified black budget world (read more about that world here.) He claimed that some of his contacts told him that “we have things out there that are literally out of this world, better than Star Trek or what you see in the movies.” (1)

From his work alone, James Goodall knew Ben Rich well. In a video interview, Goodall stated that he spoke to Rich approximately 10 days before he died:

“About ten days before he died, I was speaking to Ben on the telephone at the USC Medical Center in LA. And he said, ‘Jim, we have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend.

“They have about forty five hundred people at the Lockheed Skunk works. What have they been doing for the last eighteen or twenty years? They’re building something.’” (1)

Another source comes from John Andrews, who was a legendary Lockheed engineer. He had written to Rich, stating his own belief in UFOs, both manmade and extraterrestrial.

Andrews has asked Rich if his own beliefs covered extraterrestrial as well as manmade UFOs. Rich’s reply was as follows:

“Yes, I’m a believer in both categories. I feel everything is possible. Many of our man-made UFOs are Un-Funded Opportunities. There are two types of UFOs, the ones we build, and the ones they build.” (1)

In Rich’s reply, he underlined the U, F, and O in “unfunded opportunities.”

Thirdly, Jan Harzan, a senior executive with IBM, along with Tom Keller, an aerospace engineer who has worked as a computer systems analyst for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, discusses a talk Ben gave some time ago.

On March 23rd, 1993 at a UCLA School of Engineering talk where he was presenting a general history of Sunk Works, he said this:

“We now know how to travel to the stars. There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars and it won’t take a lifetime to do it.

“It is time to end all the secrecy on this, as it no longer poses a national security threat, and make the technology available for use in the private sector.

“There are many in the intelligence community who would like to see this stay in the black and not see the light of day. We now have the technology to take ET home.” (1)

Here is a video of Jan telling the story:

What’s Remarkable About the ET/UFO Phenomenon

It’s quite remarkable how many verified statements we have regarding UFOs (unidentified flying objects) and extraterrestrials from people who have held the highest positions possible within the government, military, academia, politics and more.

To be honest, it’s overwhelming, and when you put all of those statements together with all of the previously classified documentation that has been released over the past few years, it paints a startling picture.

Anybody who has done even a fair amount of research, and adheres to the philosophy of “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance,” would not be able to deny this, and I have yet to come across someone who has done the research that still subjects this topic to the “conspiracy theory” realm.

If you’d like to learn more about UFOs, a great place to start is by checking out what happens when they are tracked on military radar.

Here is an example: There really is an “abundant amount of evidence.”

Want to Learn More About The Secret Space Program? This is a great lecture given by researcher Richard Dolan. A great place to start –


Posted in The science you're not told about | Comments Off on Some alternative versions of science and history

Could energy be free?

Modern society growth is proportional to available energy, so the availability of cost-effective energy for everyone is clearly critical.  This post presents a range of issues with regard to the science, views and potential for free energy and so-called renewable energy.

Scroll down to see additional articles at the end of the post.

Could energy be free?

Could energy be free A selection of several articles and videos on the subject, 10 May 2016

This article presents a range of issues with regard to the potential for free energy.


Modern society growth is proportional to available energy, so the availability of cost-effective energy for everyone is clearly critical.  This post presents a range of issues with regard to the science, views and potential for free energy and so-called renewable energy.

Of the seven largest markets in the world, namely, energy, agriculture, telecom, auto, chemicals, packaged foods, and pharma, the energy market surpasses all others by a minimum margin of $3.3 trillion dollars per year. The growing demand for energy drives market size projections to $10.4 trillion per year by 2020, helping energy maintain its dominant position in the world markets.   The 2013 world GDP was USD75.59, so energy comprised about 15%.

Several organisations are working hard to develop low-cost devices that could provide almost-free energy that potentially could destroy or replace most of the current energy industry.  Question: how do you think energy industry leaders are reacting?  Read banker J P Morgan’s reaction to Nicola Tesla’s inventions below, and view Thomas Bearden’s videos, also below.

However, the most of the official scientific views of ‘free energy’, Tesla’s demonstrations, zero point energy and the like are dismissive.   But then, recall everyone ‘knew’ the sun went around the earth, and peptic ulcers were caused by stress and acidity – until 2 doctors, who had been scoffed at for 20 years – proved these ulcers were caused by bacteria, and won Nobel prizes.  Scientific has an alarming history of ‘getting it wrong’. As Einstein said, it only takes one person to prove I’m wrong’.


The reader is advised that most of what is presented in this section is very different from what he/she is likely to have been taught, read and viewed. Rather than scoffing, which is a natural reaction, it would be better to maintain an open mind and consider the degree that past information on this and allied subjects may have been manipulated for entirely different ends.

The subject of ‘free energy’ is best introduced and put into context by the Sirius project. Dr Carol Rosin interviews Dr Steve Greer to discuss an update on Sirius Disclosure (34 mins intro, implementation at 77 mins, ends 94 mins) – audio interview

Interview with Dr Carol Rosin: Von Braun’s legacy – 34 min 2013 YouTube –

Tom Bearden

 Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Bearden, US Army, PhD explains how energy can be extracted from the ‘zero points field’, the ‘dipole’ effect and how and why this form of free energy has been buried by various black government, financial and industrial operations as well as the scientific community and non-availability of patents for ‘perpetual motion machines’. Recorded around 2002, but similarly valid in 2016. The main difference is that ‘money-printing’ has extended his forecasted deadline – 47 minutes

Thomas article:  Clean Electrical Energy from the Active Vacuum 2002

A 6-minutes video, and a longer 50 min video that explains the article including many associated factors

History of free energy, suppression, economic cartels in energy preventing free energy, assassination etc.  and how it works – over-unity power systems, Lt Colonel Thomas Bearden ( 47 minutes) – his website: – note quotes.  This is an old video ~2003 – predicts world will be into mass war in 2007/08 or sooner if new energy generation is prevented – his logic remains, but the various institutions, cartels etc. have managed to delay free energy for another decade since. Dr. Eugene Mallove RIP

Description of zero point energy by Dr Hal Puthoff – (watch Dr Mallove 3 videos at the end of first video, linked after the first video)

Perpetual motion machine?

Science skeptic and writer, Martin Gardner has called claims of such zero-point-energy-based systems, “as hopeless as past efforts to build perpetual motion machines.”  Perpetual motion machine refers to technical designs of machines that can operate indefinitely, optionally with additional output of excessive energy, without any cited input source of energy, which is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Formally, technical designs that claim to harness zero-point energy would not fall into this category because zero-point energy is claimed as the input source of energy’.  The issue is, then, what the are boundaries that comprise the overall system in which the energy resides.

A full explanation of progress in the zero energy science: ‘As to whether zero-point energy may become a source of usable energy, this is considered extremely unlikely by most physicists, and none of the claimed devices are taken seriously by the mainstream science community. Nevertheless, SED interpretation of the Bohr orbit (above) does suggest a way whereby energy might be extracted. Based upon this a patent has been issued and experiments have been underway at the University of Colorado (U.S. Patent 7,379,286).’  NB mainstream science ‘knew’ the sun goes around the earth, and stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid.

Nikola Tesla

 A Device to Harness Free Cosmic Energy Claimed by Nikola Tesla: “This new power for the driving of the world’s machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities.” It is not clear how or whether this related directly to zero-point energy.  It is fully documented that banker J P Morgan believed it would work and preclude his profiting from selling energy; he sabotaged Tesla’s progress and stole Tesla’s patents.  Acknowledged as the greatest inventor ever, as a result, Tesla died a pauper.

Dr Steven Greer

 Steven Greer, re new/free energy/ET etc.

The potential for ‘free energy’ is discussed at – Utilization Controversy section.  Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state Despite the scientific stance to typically discount the claims, numerous articles and books have been published addressing and discussing the potential of tapping zero-point-energy from the quantum vacuum or elsewhere. See 44 references with links.


Inherit the Wind (and not much else)

Inherit the Wind (and not much else)  By David Archibald, Quadrant Online, 8 Feb 2015

 The RET Scheme, a monstrous mis-allocation of resources, continues to make Australia poorer for no good reason.  Those who concocted and voted for it seem determined to hobble the nation’s prospects while slipping some $5 billion every year into the pockets of rent-seeking saboteurs

One Senate inquiry is addressing Australia’s drift towards a fuel crisis, a sin of omission on the part of the Rudd/Gillard government and the current Liberal one.  Another Senate inquiry is investigating a sin of commission that started under John Howard’s watch and continues to this day, namely the proliferation of wind turbines under the RET Scheme.

Submissions to the latter inquiry are online here.  I commend submission Number Five by your humble correspondent. It is reproduced below:

No electric power producer would take power from a wind turbine operation if they had the choice.  All the wind turbines in Australia have been forced upon the power companies that take their output.

Why do we have wind turbines?

So the question has to be asked, why do we have wind turbines in the first place?

Wind turbines are commonly considered to produce renewable energy.  This is distinct from energy sources that are once-through and thus finite. The rationale for renewable energy is that its use reduces the consumption of fossil fuels by substitution.  The rationale for that, in turn, is that fossil fuels contribute to the warming of the atmosphere through the greenhouse effect.  This last rationale goes to the source of the wind turbine problem.  So it is apposite to examine that claim.

While climate change is real in that the climate is always changing, and the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is real, the effect at the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is minuscule.

The greenhouse gasses keep the planet 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be if they weren’t in the atmosphere.  So the average temperature of the planet’s surface is 15°C instead of -15°C. Of that effect, 80% is provided by water vapour, 10% by carbon dioxide and methane, ozone and so on make up the remaining 10%.  So the warming provided by carbon dioxide is three degrees.

The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 286 parts per million. Let’s round that up to 300 parts per million to make the maths easier. You could be forgiven for thinking that if 300 parts per million produces three degrees of warming, the relationship is that every one hundred parts per million produces a degree of warming. We are adding two parts per million to the atmosphere each year, which is 100 parts per million every 50 years and, at that rate, the world would heat up at a fair clip.

The relationship is logarithmic

But the relationship isn’t arithmetic, it is logarithmic. The  University of Chicago has an online program called Modtran which allows you to put in an assumed atmospheric  carbon dioxide  content and it will  tell you how  much  atmospheric  heating that produces. It turns out that the first 20 parts per million produces half of the heating effect to date. The effect rapidly drops away as the carbon dioxide concentration increases.

By the time we get to the current level in the atmosphere of 400 parts per million, the heating effect is only 0.1°C per one hundred parts per million. At that rate, the temperature of the atmosphere might rise by 0.2°C every one hundred years.

The total atmospheric heating from carbon dioxide to date is of the order of 0.1°C.  By the time humanity has dug up all the rocks we can economically burn, and burnt them, the total heating effect from carbon dioxide might be of the order of 0.4°C. This would take a couple of centuries.  A rise of this magnitude would be lost in the noise of the climate system.  This agrees with observations which have not found any signature from carbon dioxide-related heating in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

The carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere is  actually  dangerously  low,  not  dangerously  high.   During the glacial periods of our current ice age, the level got as low as 180 parts per million.  Plant growth shuts down at 150 parts per million. Several times in the last three million years, life above sea level came within 30 parts per million of extinction due to a lack of carbon dioxide. The more humanity can increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the safer life on Earth will be.

Further to all that, belief in global warming from carbon dioxide requires a number of underlying assumptions.  One of these is that the feedback loop of increased heating from carbon dioxide causes more water vapour to be held in the atmosphere which in turns causes more heating, a runaway effect.  And that this feedback effect only starts from the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – not a higher level or a lower level, but exactly at the pre-industrial level.

Some estimates of the heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide are as high as 6.0°C for a doubling of the concentration from the pre-industrial level.  For this to be true, atmospheric heating of at least 2.0°C should have been seen to date. In the real world, there has been a temperature rise of 0.3°C in the last 35 years, as measured by satellites.  This is well short of what is predicted by global warming theory as practiced by the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and others.

This is also a far more plausible reason for the warming of the planet during the current Modern Warm Period which followed the ending of the Little Ice Age in 1900.  The energy that keeps the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun and the level and make-up of that energy does change. The Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than it had been in the previous 8,000 years.  As shown by the geomagnetic Aa Index, the Sun started getting more active in the mid-19th century and the world’s glaciers began retreating at about the same time.

It is entirely rational to think that a more active Sun would result in a warmer Earth, and this is borne out by empirical observation. To wit, the increased Antarctic sea ice cover observed during the satellite period.

Arctic sea ice extent retreated for the last 20 years of the 20th century.  That is compatible with global warming for any reason.  At the same time, Antarctic sea extent increased by an amount similar to the Arctic sea ice loss. This is not possible if we accept that global warming is due to carbon dioxide.  It also means that global warming due to carbon dioxide did not cause the bulk of the warming in the rest of the planet because carbon dioxide’s effect was overwhelmed in Antarctica by some other force.

Increase in Antarctic sea ice extent

The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is entirely consistent with increased global temperatures due to high solar activity, as explained by Henrik Svensmark’s theory, which holds that high solar activity produces a lower neutron flux in the lower troposphere from intergalactic cosmic radiation, in turn providing fewer nucleation sites for cloud droplet formation and, thus, less cloud cover. Sunnier skies over Antarctica in turn mean that more solar radiation is reflected by high-albedo snow and ice instead of being absorbed in the cloud cover.  Thus Antarctica has cooled.

The rest of the world has enjoyed the best climatic conditions, and thus agricultural growing conditions, since the 13th century.  But what the Sun gives it can also take away.  Solar physicists have been warning for over a decade  that the Sun is entering a prolonged period of low activity similar to that of the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1710. Most recently, Livingstone and Penn have predicted a maximum amplitude for the next solar cycle, Solar Cycle 25, of 7.  By comparison, the previous solar cycle, Solar Cycle 23, had a maximum amplitude of 120.

The longest temperature record on the planet is the Central England Temperature Record from 1659.  Using the solar-based forecasting model developed by Dr David Evans and the Livingstone and Penn estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7, a prediction can be made of the effect on the Central England Temperature out to 2040.  The reduction in solar activity now being observed will result in temperatures returning to the levels of the mid-19th century at best, with the possibility of revisiting the lows of the 17th and 18th centuries.  Peak summer temperatures may not change much but the length of the growing season will shorten at both ends, playing havoc with crop yields.

The notion of global warming

The notion of global warming has resulted in an enormous mis-allocation of resources in some Western societies, but we can be thankful for one thing.  If it had not been for the outrageous prostitution of science in the global warming cause, then the field of climate would not have attracted the attention that has determined what is actually happening to the Earth’s climate.  Humanity would otherwise be sleepwalking into the severe cold period in train.

As demonstrated above, there is no moral basis for Australian society’s investment in wind turbines if the purpose of that investment is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a form of renewable energy.  Global warming due to carbon dioxide is of no consequence and the world is cooling anyway.

Wind turbines

WIND TURBINES may lack a moral purpose, but might there be some other good involved?  Let’s examine the claim that wind turbines provide renewable energy, thus reducing our depletion of finite energy resources.

Wind turbines are made using energy from coal at about 4 cents per kWh and provide energy thought to cost of the order of 10 cents per kWh.  In effect, they are machines for taking cheap, stable and reliable energy from coal and giving it back in the form of an intermittent and unpredictable dribble at more than twice the price.

That is one thing.  But what stops wind turbines from being renewable is that the making of wind turbines can’t be powered using energy from the wind turbines themselves! If power from wind turbines costing 10 cents per kWh was used to make more wind turbines, then the wind turbines so produced would make power at something like 25 cents per kWh.  The cost would compound away and any society that attempted to run itself on wind energy would collapse. Wind energy as a component of a power system relies upon transfer of energy at its inception from another source.  It is not renewable energy.  It is no consolation that solar power from photovoltaic panels is much worse in this respect.

That wind energy is renewable energy is the second lie on which the RET scheme is based, the first being that renewable energy is a palliative against global warming.

There is not much more that needs to be said. The RET Scheme is a monstrous misallocation of the nation’s resources and continues to make the Australian people poorer for no good reason.  Those who concocted it and voted for it have sold the Australian people into the servitude and oppression of rent-seekers to the tune of $5 billion per annum. The science and economics it is based on are no better than voodoo and witchcraft.  The wind turbines scattered around the Australian countryside are a physical manifestation of the infestation of the body politic by the self-loathing, millenarian cult of global warming.

The RET Scheme draws resources from better schemes

Unfortunately, the RET Scheme and its ilk have drawn resources from the development of energy sources that would power Australia cheaply, efficiently and with enough of a return on energy invested to maintain Australia’s high standard of living into the next millennium.

The same kind of intense interest from the wider scientific community that determined what is really happening with climate has also determined that the optimum nuclear technology for society to adopt is the thorium molten salt reactor.  Any middle-ranking industrial power, such as Australia, could develop this technology, and should do so.

Much time and treasure has been lost chasing the phantom menace of global warming.  The sooner the RET Scheme is put to rest, the sooner that the nation’s efforts can be properly directed towards our security and welfare in developing the best possible energy source if the nation is to survive and prosper.

David Archibald is a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC where his research interest is strategic energy policy.  The Institute is a graduate school for US security agencies, State Department and Department of Defense. He has published several books and a number of papers on climate science.  He has lectured on climate science in both US Senate and Congressional hearing rooms. His most recent book is Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)


Energy plan puts public service before public good

by Alan Moran, Director, Deregulation, Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) March 14, 2014

THE energy white paper under preparation proclaims that government has a role in the energy industry. But it is one that is best limited to controlling natural monopoly elements within the industry. It is certainly not to provide some blueprint for the future.

A history of public ownership

Energy has an ongoing history of public ownership, at least in part stemming from misplaced notions that it is a natural monopoly and a necessity requiring government interventions. The outcome has been deleterious and has been compounded by a determination of governments to use the industry to accommodate its social, environmental and industry policies. This has transformed an inherently low-cost industry into one that now has among the world’s highest prices.

A worrying feature of the review is a prominent role given to the supposed need to maintain analytical capability within the government. This appears to be a priority to protect departmental personnel jobs that sits badly with the market-driven industry the white paper claims to be championing. The priority may be partly due to an excessive number of goals that the white paper’s “issues paper” specifies. These encompass supplying and using energy:

  • To put downward costs of business and households.
  • To grow exports.
  • To promote low emissions energy technologies.
  • To encourage the more efficient use of energy.

Whatever may be said of the first two of these stated goals, the third and fourth are in conflict and have spawned the egregious interventions in energy policy that have created a need for a white paper. The fourth also adopts the discredited hubris: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

Markets develop from the interactions of consumers with businesses, which seek to sell their goods, access inputs and reduce risks. Government’s role is to allow these processes to be pursued and to uphold the law.

A plethora of goals

Rather than a plethora of goals, the white paper should have a single focus: to allow the market to bring about efficient production of energy with interventions limited to addressing natural monopoly situations. Anything beyond that will perpetuate the weaknesses presently evident.

Energy is a vital factor in the direct wellbeing of consumers.

More important still for Australia, it is a key component of economic development. Our minerals and agricultural processing industries are natural fits to the resource endowment that ­Aust­ralia has and cheap energy is both part of that endowment and crucial to its development.

Irresponsible government actions

Irresponsible government actions have impaired the value of our energy resources. This can be seen in four key areas:

  • Retaining ownership of energy businesses in networks where such ownership is verifiably inefficient and always likely to remain so.
  • Placing taxes and regulatory imposts on energy suppliers to force them into costly measures in pursuit of government-determined efficiency, consumer consultation and greenhouse-re­­­d­­uc­­­­ing measures.
  • Impeding access to land for gas exploration and development.
  • Suppressing prices to certain customer groups, thereby weakening incentives to supply and maintain industry resilience.

Policies to rectify these impairments often entail government action, which are the cause of the problems in the first place.

In the past, as with the post-­Hilmer competition policy ­pay­ments, governments were re­warded (and occasionally punished) with regard to an agreed set of principles.

But the use of government to combat government deficiencies is oxymoronic.

Indeed, if a previous commonwealth government had attempted more forcefully to exert pressure on states to promote a goal it favoured, energy saving measures, the outcome would have been even more perverse than that which has eventuated.

The white paper’s aforementioned issues paper continues to promote market interventions in many places associated with green energy and energy efficiency.

It also has to be said that providing incentives for governments to do things that are in the interests of their own consumers is logically questionable.

A useful starting point

A useful starting point for policy, in line with the government’s deregulation initiative, is to announce the early sun-setting of all regulatory measures and discriminatory charges and taxes on energy supplies at the commonwealth level. This would be accompanied by an invitation to state governments to adopt similar programs. In the absence of such a measure the best that can be hoped for is to have the process unveil costs of poor decisions in the past as counsel for future decision-makers.


Posted in Energy Management | 3 Comments

Government for the Silent Majority

The KiS report – “Keep it Simple” – Government for the silent majority.

The full report can be downloaded as a PDF file: KiS full report 100316  The report summary and table of contents are provided below.

The KiS  report describes an Australian government the ‘silent majority’ of voters would likely have elected – if they had the choice.

Why?  Because because it would benefit them far, far more than any recent governments which have evolved since federation over a century ago.  Many would say most if not all aspects of government have gone downhill ever since.  Like a corporation that is failing badly, the Australian Government needs a fundamental restructure – a ‘root and branch’ rebuild based on the needs of 2016 and the future.

The report includes assessments of, and proposed solutions to, key factors voters expect their governments to lead and manage appropriately on their behalf such as: finance, debt, defence, environment, law and order, energy availability, pollution regulations, immigration, taxation, healthcare, recreational drugs, education, infrastructure and related planning approaches.

Please note this report was written nearly 5 years ago and is in dire need of updating in some areas.  However, the substantive points remain valid, and the overall proposed solution will not change significantly in the update.  A few areas such as the system for taxation will be modified, as will aspects of foreign relationships.

Whilst the report is focused on the Australian government, much of the report could be applied to most governments in democratic countries.

It is suggested too that an article by Ron Paul in the section Rise and Fall of the US Empire is complementary, and very worthwhile reading –  Ron Paul, a US Senator who ran for the presidency on three occasions, presents a unique perspective based on fundamental principles and an in-depth assessment of the US governance.  His details can be viewed at

 About the author: Peter Senior CV March 2016 – email:

The report Table of Contents, then the Summary, are below:

KiS Report – Table of Contents


2.  Introduction
2.01  There are glimmers of hope
2.02  Check the roadmap first

3.  Issues Influencing KiS Government
3.01  Democracy evolution
3.02  The modern nation-state
3.03  Cargo Cult mentality
3.04  Immigration
3.05  Freedom of speech
3.06  Trade unions, labour laws and productivity
3.07  Standards, regulations and intrusion
3.08  ‘Carbon pollution’ v. weather
3.09  The ‘green mafia’
3.10  Water management
3.11  Energy management
3.12  Global governance
3.13  NGO influence
3.14  Bureaucracy and convoluted government management
3.15  Levels of government

3.16  Justice
3.17  Economics and financial management
3.18  The modern politician
3.19  Human imperfections and differences

4.  KiS Issue Summary

5.  KiS Philosophy

6.  KiS Vision for Australia

7.  KiS Management
7.01  Management 101 delivers optimum results
7.02  A starting point to improve on

8.  KiS Government Organisation
8.01  KiS national government objective
8.02  KiS national government law process
8.03  National Government structure
8.04  Two levels of government
8.05  Democracy

9.  KiS Government management
9.01  Criminal Justice
9.02  National and local service fees
9.03  Excise tax and royalties
9.04  Financial management
9.05  Commercial and financial oversight
9.06  Citizenship and Visas
9.07  Infrastructure and the environment
9.08  Labour laws and productivity
9.09  Welfare
9.10  Retirement
9.11  Health
9.12  Education

10.  Implementing KiS Government
10.01  Transition plan
10.02  KiS government activities and resources
10.03  Planning and plans
10.04  International agreements and foreign aid
10.05  Asset ownership
10.06  Process and regulation simplification
10.07  Culture and values tests
10.08  Guardian group and freedom of speech
10.09  Communicating KiS changes

11.  Would the Silent Majority Vote for KiS?
11.01  Are the silent majority of Australian voters sufficiently fed up?
11.02  Boiling frog syndrome
11.03  An about-turn by politicians as well as the silent majority?

A.  Australian immigration history
B.  The Greens’ agenda
C.   ‘Carbon Pollution’ in the UK
D.  The Silent Majority (1):  Australian divorce
E.  The Silent Majority (2):  ‘I’m tired’ (US)
F.  The Silent Majority (3):  What good people do
G. ‘The Australian Government beat me to it’

KiS Report Summary

Surveys, ‘pub-talk’ and media comment indicate that most Australians are very dissatisfied with their Government.  Few voters believe that current political parties can fix the plethora of problems which arise from the government itself – and politicians tend to exacerbate problems rather than fixing them.

Voter frustrations include: excessive governmental intrusion and bureaucracy; financial regulator failures; abysmal government management of risk, building, health, water, energy and immigration; ineffective criminal justice; ‘carbon pollution’ taxes and waste; the ‘green mafia’; variability of freedom of speech; covert influence from some NGOs; inadequate employment laws; and the regularity of politicians’ breaking of promises.

No democratic government in the world is widely viewed as very successful, so there is no ideal model to copy.  The complexity of government and the depth of related problems are too entrenched for incremental improvements to be effective.  A keep-it-simple policy could provide the best solution.  KiS is a completely different way of democratic government, starting with a ‘clean slate’ and applying the best management practices.  Key components of a KiS government would include:

  • Recognition that competent and diligent governmental staff are often thwarted by excessive complexity and by covert agendas of power brokers and ideologues.
  • Government structure comprises two levels: national and local.  States have figurehead roles only.  Local governments have wider roles including health and education boards.
  • House of Representatives and Senate member numbers are reduced to a total of 100.  Members demonstrate excellent competencies and comply with fiduciary duties of care.
  • All taxes are replaced by ‘flat rate service fees’ introduced over 3 years: 20% on individual incomes and 10% on business expenditure.  Compliance is simple.
  • Businesses such as mining companies using natural resources pay economic rents which enable fair profits and encourage investment and growth, including overseas investment.
  • Recreational drugs are not illegal.  Excise duties are charged on alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs at rates that cover all related costs with rigorous auditing and penalties.
  • Government processes, systems and regulations are reviewed using ‘clean slate’ methods that optimise efficiency and effectiveness, and, if necessary, are modified or replaced.
  • All government departments have audited plans that conform to guidelines reflecting best practices, and which include preparation for such contingencies as catastrophic weather.
  • The criminal justice system focuses first on full compensation of all victims’ losses and all related judicial costs, then on the rehabilitation of criminals.  When appropriate and possible, custodial sentences consist of home detention – prison is a last resort.
  • Government asset ownership is retained only if no better alternative be available.
  • Commercial and financial oversight is strengthened to ensure that GFC-type greed and excesses are not repeated.  Net government debt is eliminated as soon as practical.
  • All government funding relating to ‘carbon pollution’ ceases.  Related actions are reviewed after rigorous assessments and recommendations from a Royal Commission.
  • Immigrant assessments are completed and decisions made within three months.  Immigrants sign contracts agreeing to abide by Australian law and to support Australian culture and values.  Major transgressors are evicted from Australia.
  • A Guardian group investigates concerns about covert influence and behaviour.
  • Implementation is gradual over several years; each step builds on the last success.

KiS solutions focus on the concerns and wishes of the ‘silent majority’ of voters — the antithesis of political power-brokers, ideologues and rent-seekers.  KiS proposals are not intended to be definitive; rather they provide a basis for improvements and further reforms.

Are the ‘silent majority’ of voters so fed up with existing governments that they would vote for radical change such as KiS?  Would sufficient candidates with the requisite competence and credibility stand for KiS and promote it, or would an existing political party adopt KiS policies if it became clear a growing movement of voters demand change?  Failure to implement radical change soon will result in Australian politics and government descending even further into complexity, intrusion and waste with little hope of real reform.

Posted in Better Government | Comments Off on Government for the Silent Majority

Western culture is failing

The West needs to beat Islamism on the battlefield of ideas

The West needs to beat Islamism on the battlefield of ideas  By Frank Furedi, Spiked Online, 30 December 2015

This was the year when a growing section of the public began to regard the threat of homegrown terrorism as far more real than at any time since 9/11. In Europe, the Charlie Hebdo massacre in January stoked initial fears about the rising terror threat. These were heightened when two people were shot dead by an Islamist in Copenhagen, Denmark in mid-February. And the slaughter of 30 British tourists on holiday in Tunisia showed that jihadis viewed any kaffir as a target. But it was the scale of the murderous attack in Paris on 13 November that really frightened Europeans. For Americans, the murder of 14 people in San Bernardino, California, a few weeks after the Paris attacks, proved equally terrifying.

In the global scheme of things, a relatively small number of terrorist incidents in Europe and the US do not add up to a significant threat to society’s way of life. But what makes them appear more menacing is that they seem to be linked to a wider global jihadist struggle making headway on the battlefields of Afghanistan, north Africa, Libya, Iraq and Syria. Western intervention on these battlefields has proved singularly ineffective. The only forces that have succeeded in containing and, on occasion, overwhelming ISIS have been the highly committed Kurdish militias and Iranian-led fighters in Iraq.

The situation on the battlefield of ideas is, if anything, of even greater concern. The willingness of thousands of young Western Muslims to travel to Syria and risk their lives for the radical jihadist cause shows how influential ISIS has become. Think of that photo of the three British Muslim teenage girls, clutching their bags as they prepared to board their flight on their way to Syria. This image captures something Western governments and societies are reluctant to acknowledge: namely, that many normal and idealistic Muslim teenagers are drawn towards a cultural outlook that loathes Western society and its values.

Losing the battle of ideas

What is truly significant about the high-profile terrorist incidents in Paris is the reaction of sections of the Muslim community. No doubt many Muslims were horrified by the massacres committed in the name of Islam. But some Muslim youths were more ambivalent.

This was clear in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo killings. In many of Paris’s banlieues, there was little mourning for the victims. Numerous teachers in France reported that some immigrant children expressed deeply hostile sentiments towards the terrorists’ victims. Others said some children refused to believe the official version of events. And many French teachers were at a loss to know how to react when many Muslim children refused to respect the minute’s silence for the dead.

The reaction of many young Muslim schoolchildren to the Charlie Hebdo incident is quite consistent with the research into public attitudes towards ISIS. A poll of over 2,000 British adults, conducted by ICM in July, showed that nine per cent of respondents viewed ISIS in a positive light; three per cent held a ‘very favourable view’ of ISIS; and six per cent held a ‘somewhat positive view’. Despite the numerous atrocities reported in the media, the proportion of those with a positive view of ISIS has increased by two percentage points since last year.

Public-opinion polls are always difficult to interpret. But what the ICM poll suggests is that a significant minority of British Muslims may be sympathetic to some of ISIS’s ideals. The majority of those are likely to be passive sympathisers with no desire to journey to Syria. However, what their sympathies signify is that radical jihadist ideas have gained a foothold in British society. At the very least, the poll suggests a sizeable group of British Muslims expresses its everyday frustrations with the world, and particularly the West, through a favourable attitude towards ISIS.

Elsewhere, researchers investigating support in France and Spain for ISIS reported:

‘Among young people in the hovels and grim housing projects of the Paris banlieues, we found fairly wide tolerance or support for ISIS’s values, and even for the brutal actions carried out in their name. In Spain, among a large population sample, we found little willingness to fight in order to defend democratic values against onslaught.’

At present, the willingness actively to fight for ISIS is confined to a tiny minority. But the fact that there is a significant body of passive support is ominous.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the way 9/11 is now perceived and understood by many sections of European society. Many members of Muslim communities readily believe 9/11 conspiracy theories, especially the idea that it was all a Jewish plot. Claims about the world made by the Islamic State and other similar groups exercise a far greater influence today than they did three or four years ago. There are now far more people living in Europe who silently applaud or approve of an event like the Paris attacks.

The growing influence of radical Islamic sentiments is paralleled by a growing moral and political disorientation within European public life. European society is finding it very difficult to respond to what has now become a war against its way of life. This is especially clear in education, where numerous teachers have said how tough it is to discuss such ‘controversial’ subjects as 9/11 or the Holocaust in the classroom. Some teachers avoid these topics altogether.

Both France and Britain are failing to socialise a significant section of young people. Many of these youngsters embrace an Islamist counter-narrative that calls into question Western Enlightenment values and celebrates jihadist identity politics. One of the aims of the Paris attacks is to turn these anti-Western sentiments into a more active force in European society.

For a minority of young people, radical jihadism provides an outlet for their idealism. It also offers a coherent and edgy identity, a variant of the ‘cool’ narrative used by other online subcultures. The behaviour of young people who are attracted to jihadist websites is not all that different to the numerous non-Muslim Westerners who visit nihilistic websites and become fascinated by destructive themes and images. It just so happens that the destructive images and themes on jihadist websites are also linked to a destructive political cause.

Perils of multi-moralism

Why are so many young Muslims hostile to the society into which they were born? Many blame anti-Muslim prejudice, economic deprivation or the conflict in the Middle East. It may well be the case that such issues have caused bitterness in Muslim communities. But Muslims are not the only group to have experienced prejudice or economic deprivation. One distinctive feature of European Muslim subcultures is that they are relatively self-sufficient and have a strong impulse to maintain a clear boundary between themselves and others.

Sociological research shows that the way that members of a subculture talk to one another and the views they hold are often different to the outlook of the rest of society. That is true for radical Muslims, as it is for other groups. Muslim subcultures possess their own pool of knowledge – that is, ideas and sentiments that are distinct to such cultures. Unfortunately, distinctive, culturally defined pools of knowledge create a fertile terrain for the construction and circulation of disturbing views and rumours. In such circumstances, rumours about a Jewish or American conspiracy can swiftly mutate into a taken-for-granted fact. Worse still, such ‘facts’ and beliefs are rarely tested in the wider public sphere and can therefore turn into deeply ingrained prejudices.

The absence of debate about the sensitive issues that divide Muslim subcultures from other sections of society is, in part, an inadvertent consequence of the policies of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has failed to develop a moral and cultural outlook to which all sections of society can sign up. Instead it has encouraged cultural segmentation where, in effect, we now have a system of multi-values: numerous values existing side by side, none of them being properly discussed or challenged. That is why the image of a beheading can appear to some as an inspiration and to others as unspeakably horrendous. Such morally polarised reactions to the same event are the outcome of a society in which cultural segmentation prevails.

Years of lost opportunities

At first sight, it is difficult to account for the growing influence of radical jihadist sentiments among young Muslims living in Western societies. In the aftermath of the 2001 riots in Oldham, in the north west of England, I talked to Muslim students about their impression of life in Britain. Most of them spoke in a language that conveyed a strong sense of bitterness and, in some cases, hatred. In the early 2000s, however, their response was couched in a language of disappointment and disillusionment. Their criticism was not directed at ‘manmade law’ or democracy, but at the failure of society to live up to its promises.

Since 2001, the attitudes of some young Muslims towards their society have hardened and altered in character. Some no longer want society to accommodate their grievances; they want to inhabit a different moral universe. There are many reasons for this radical shift in attitude. For many Muslims, the military and terrorist success of jihadist forces has been emboldening. Stories about how an individual or a couple of ‘fighters’ – such as the Boston bombers – terrified the US appeal to some young men and women in search of a hero.

However, the most powerful driver of jihadist influence in the West is the culture of victimhood. In recent decades, the victim has acquired a quasi-sacred status. Competitive claims-making about victimisation has become widespread. Little wonder, then, that one of the most powerful themes promoted in radical jihadist propaganda is the representation of Islam as the universal victim of Western aggression. Jihadists frame virtually every dimension of local and global misfortune afflicting Muslims as the outcome of a permanent war waged by Western crusaders.

The jihadist media present Muslims as eternal victims. From this standpoint, any behaviour that does not accord with the worldview of jihadist political theology can be represented as an act of victimisation – an insult to Islam. In such circumstances, the reaction to a provocation is legitimised both by jihadist ideology and the Western cult of the victim. Even ISIS’s claim to recover Islam’s golden age is shot through, as Edward Said put it, with the ‘sanctimonious piety of historical or cultural victimhood’. Arguably, the jihadists travelling to Syria are as much a product of contemporary Western global culture, within which victimhood is sanctified, as they are of traditional Islam.

However, jihadists are not simply reacting against the Western way of life. In recent years, the likes of ISIS have appealed to the idealism of many young people. What Westerners perceive as a barbaric, medieval institution, some young people perceive as a movement that offers them a sense of purpose and meaning. That the Caliphate is now perceived in such positive light by some young Muslims is an indictment of the inability of Western society to inspire people with its own vision of the world.

Until now, Western governments, the media and intellectuals have more or less opted out of the battle of ideas. Efforts at preventing radicalisation have proved singularly ineffective because they are by definition reactive. What is required is not a reaction to the latest threat, but a moral and intellectual assertion of values that are worth fighting for.

That is the real challenge facing secular democracies: to gain popular support for the values of the Enlightenment and an open society. Western society needs to provide a positive account of itself, and to take its own ideals far more seriously than it does at present. And Western intellectuals, who, at the moment, are conspicuously silent on this matter, need to take their vocation and public role far more seriously. As the experience of the past 15 years shows, it is the failure to advance any vision worth supporting that has helped radical jihadists gain a measure of moral authority over sections of Muslim youth.

Frank Furedi is a sociologist and commentator. His latest book, Power of Reading: Socrates to Twitter, is published by Bloomsbury Continuum.

Posted in Western culture is failing | Comments Off on Western culture is failing