More must-read articles

Better-management.org brings you thought-provoking, and many very worrying, articles on finance, economics, geopolitics, the environment, government and much more.

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

What would happen if Donald Trump became Australian Prime Minister?

What would happen if Donald Trump became Australian Prime Minister  By Robert Gottliebsen, The Australian, 20 January 2017

What would happen to Australia if we elected a party headed by Donald Trump to government and Donald Trump became our prime minister?

I am going to going to transpose some of the US policies being advocated by Donald Trump to the Australian scene to illustrate what a profound change that would make to our nation.

The purpose of such an exercise is not to advocate such courses of action (I agree with some of the Trumpism style policies but strongly disagree with others) but rather to underline just what a fundamental change he plans for America.

Our first real indication of how far he will try to go, and at what pace, will be his inauguration speech. If he gives one of those speeches that make everyone feel good but says nothing then I think we can assume the pace of change will be much slower than markets have been anticipating.

On the other hand if he comes out fighting for his agenda then the Trump express will have left the platform full steam ahead. But that still does not mean he will be able to achieve rapid change.

Whichever approach he takes at inauguration, it will be a world-changing event. That’s why I will set my alarm for around 3.30am (AEDT) tomorrow so I don’t miss a moment of this historic event. You can join me or do the more sensible thing and record it.

I don’t want to give myself a time deadline but I will give you my interpretation of events as soon as I can.

Certainly by 7am I will be well finished writing and will be joining my grandchildren for breakfast. What Trump is doing in the US (good or bad) is likely to be very important for them and their parents.

I invite you to make suggestions today about what you are looking for at the Trump inauguration and I will check your remarks before turning in tonight. They will be helpful in framing my comments tomorrow morning.

And then of course tomorrow I will invite you to contribute your interpretation of the inauguration speech. Without restricting you I would like to stay away from the obvious character flaws in the new president, not because they are unimportant, but I want to concentrate on policies.

And what do I think he will do? When in doubt I always look at what the markets are telling us and last night, after falling for some days, the US 10-year bond yield rose sharply as prices crashed. That signals the markets are expecting Trump will go full steam ahead with Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve raising interest rates at a faster pace than most expected.

So here are 10 actions Donald Trump would take in Australia if he were prime minister.

* Curb migration and expel or send to Nauru Muslim migrants threatening terror attacks or acts of violence. (I mention that first because that’s his most controversial action and Americans took it on board).

* Stop artificially starving Australia of gas and coal energy so that power prices are reduced for consumers and industry. Pipelines to the Northern Territory and Bowen Basin would be urgent projects. To kick-start exploration, he would begin by rewarding farmers where gas was discovered on their land, which is really easy to do despite the constitution. State governments which want higher power prices and set about inflicting the burden on their people will not find life pleasant.

* End the chronic duplication between the states and Commonwealth in health and education, which is bloating costs by untold billions.

* The huge waste savings would allow big tax cuts to stimulate the economy and match the US. He would not tell local investors that they would also bear much of the costs via lower franking rebates.

* Make independent contracting easier to arrange and allow them to access the lower corporate tax rate.

* Pick out 10 depressed areas of Australia and earmark them for industrial expansion. Kickstart this drive by taking up the German submarine offer to use the project to kick start digital manufacturing. And we get the submarines quicker and save up to $30 billion.

* Put a 35 per cent tariff on all cars and require Ford, General Motors and Toyota to revise their plans and/or give their plants to other world motor makers who will use them. Digital manufacturing makes Australian competitive again.

* Stop Commonwealth public servants holding back state infrastructure— infrastructure, health and education would be Commonwealth swamps that would be drained. Free medicine would disappear and users would pay more of the cost.

* Adopt a fast train project between Melbourne and Brisbane via Sydney so that people could live out of the cities and commute quickly. The big rise in regional property would help fund the project as would abandoning a second Sydney airport which would be made redundant by the train.

* Convince the US to make sensible decisions on the Joint Strike Fighter and the F22. My readers know what I mean. That’s the one policy I unreservedly agree with.

I could keep going but I think you have got the message of how revolutionary Trump policies are. See you tomorrow morning and suggest you also have breakfast with your children or grandchildren.

====================

Three Factions of the CIA that Control the World

Three Factions of the CIA that Control the World  By the Anonymous Patriots, The Millennium Report Exclusive, 17 January 2017

Every American is a target in the CIA’s domestic espionage war whether they know it or not. The bullets are digital and only a key stroke away from being fired at you.

This is clearly evidenced in the current internal conflicts of the 17 federal intelligence agencies that have arisen from the new Russian “Trump blackmail” scandal and the DNC hacking scandal that was an attempt to derail the presidential election. These scandals happen again and again and involve warring federal agencies who are theoretically supposed to be protecting Americans. Instead, there is open warfare between the three different factions of the CIA and their enemies who are considered the “lesser agencies”: the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, National Intelligence Agency, and the other redundant twelve U.S. intelligence agencies. Even the mainstream media, with all of its state sponsored legal propaganda, admits that this conflict is going on.

What is the Central Intelligence Agency?

The CIA overrides all other intelligence agencies because it can always pull the “international security” card from its sleeve and trump the lesser agencies which only have the lower priority “national security.” Presidential executive orders can be top secret and can be kept from agencies not responsible for their enforcement. So if the president conducts “international” top-secret business, he can exclude U.S. intelligence agencies from this top secret intel because they only have lower national security clearance. Essentially, the president of the United States currently conducts “international” warfare without the U.S. Congress, Supreme Court, or U.S. citizens even knowing those wars exist. The president can also wage all types of war secretly within U.S. borders because Obama changed the National Defense Authorization Act, with congressional approval, to give him those powers. Other extraordinary presidential powers have been consolidated through numerous executive orders in the last eight years.

The president now holds more power than ever and these powers are unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical. If you read the executive orders that are made available on the National Registry you will see that Obama has been conducting secret warfare on foreign countries and individuals both outside of and inside America. It is scary enough to know that under the auspices of “national security,” the president can seize all assets in America under these new powers. But scarier than this is that the CIA can still trump the president under the auspices of “international security.”

KEY POINT: The CIA has positioned itself to be a higher authority than Congress, the President, or We the People and can act in secrecy in all of its affairs.

The power of the CIA was demonstrated with the recent scandal of “fake news” about President-elect Trump being blackmailed by Russia. The fake dossier of “evidence” was brought into this country from Britain through the CIA. When U.S. intelligence agencies, the other 16 besides the CIA, tried to figure out the fake news/CIA propaganda they fell flat on their faces, as usual. The CIA tried to start a “smear campaign” against Trump. James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, apparently couldn’t see through the ruse and agreed with the CIA’s assessment. So a citizen is lead to the conclusion that either all of our intelligence agencies are lacking in capacity and intelligence capabilities OR they are kowtowing to Clapper and/or the CIA.

When Reagan started the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with executive order 12333 in 1981, it was essentially an overthrow of the existing National Security Agency (NSA) which had always been a military organization run by a high-ranking officer. The DNI’s principle job is defined as overseeing the CIA and by doing so, the DNI is actually the head of all other intelligence agencies. But note, the DNI only “oversees” the CIA, it does not “control” the CIA.

Read the full 12 page article at Three Factions of the CIA that Control the World

=====================

The Islamization Of Britain In 2016

The Islamization Of Britain In 2016  By Soeren Kern, The Gatestone Institute, 11 January

Editor’s note: the text below includes on the event from January 2016. Click on the full PDF article to read the events from February to December.

  • Sharia courts administering Islamic justice in Britain are run by clerics who believe some offenders should have their hands chopped off, according to Muslim scholar Elham Manea. She described the prevailing attitude as “totalitarian” and as more backward than some parts of Pakistan.
  • Teaching children fundamental British values is an act of “cultural supremacism,”according to the National Union of Teachers, which wants to replace the concept with one that includes “international rights.”
  • More than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts, according to a 615-page survey. Only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with radical Islam.In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.
  • Belmarsh maximum-security prison in London has become “like a jihadi training camp,” according to testimony from a former inmate. The government was accused of burying a report on prison extremism. The report warned that staff have been reluctant to tackle Islamist behavior for fear of being labelled “racist.”
  • Residents in Manchester received leaflets in their mailboxes, from a Muslim group called “Public Purity,” calling for a public ban on dogs.
  • Voter fraud has been deliberately overlooked in Muslim communities because of “political correctness,”according to a government report.
  • Police in Telford — dubbed the child sex capital of Britain — were accused of covering up allegations that hundreds of children in the town were sexually exploitedby Pakistani sex gangs.

The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 3.5 million in 2016 to become around 5.5% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.

The growth of Britain’s Muslim population can be attributed to immigration, high birth rates and conversions to Islam.

Islam and Islam-related issues, omnipresent in Britain during 2016, can be categorized into five broad themes: 1) Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists in Syria and Iraq; 2) the continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain; 3) the sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs; 4) Muslim integration into British society; and 5) the failures of British multiculturalism.

JANUARY 2016

January 3. A jihadist with a London accent appeared in an Islamic State propaganda video after the group executed five men accused of spying for the UK. The masked gunman warned Prime Minister David Cameron that the West could never defeat the Islamic State. The video also showed a young boy, aged around four and with a British accent, threatening to kill non-Muslims.

January 4. British officials traveled to Sudan to stanch the flow of UK-born medics joining the Islamic State. More than a dozen British doctors studying at Sudan’s University of Medical Sciences and Technology (UMST) have joined the Islamic State to treat jihadists in Syria. Parents said they had sent their children to study in Sudan to reconnect them with their African and Islamic roots before returning to practice medicine in Britain.

January 4. The Jamiatul Ummah School in Tower Hamlets, East London, failed an inspection when investigators from Ofsted, the official agency that regulates British schools, found extremist material in its library, including books that call for stoning women.

January 5. Pastor James McConnell, a 78-year-old pastor from Belfast, was cleared of charges that he violated the Communications Act 2003 when, in a sermon broadcast on the internet, he described Islam as “heathen,” “Satanic” and “a doctrine spawned in hell.” Judge Liam McNally said: “The courts need to be very careful not to criticize speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances.”

January 6. A man and a woman were arrested on suspicion of terrorism after attempting to board a UK-bound flight with fake Belgian passports. The pair, understood to be brother and sister, were arrested at Cristoforo Colombo Airport in Genoa, Italy, while trying to board the flight. Fears were raised that the pair, who claimed to be Syrian refugees, might be jihadis after police found violent images on their smartphones.

January 6. A House of Commons briefing paper on polygamy revealed that recent reforms to the social security system would allow migrants in polygamous marriages to claim additional benefits payments. Although polygamy is illegal in Britain, some 300,000 people are believed to be living in such unions in the country.

January 6. The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ), which represents examination boards in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, reached an agreement with Muslim groups to reschedule crucial exams during the next three years to avoid clashing with Ramadan, when observant Muslim pupils would be expected to fast.

January 8. A Muslim woman who claimed she was assaulted in downtown Birmingham for wearing a hijab days after the Paris attacks was fined after video footage proved she fabricated her story.

January 8. Islamic extremists were allowed to tour British universities unchallenged, even though universities and colleges are legally required to prevent extremists radicalizing students on campus, according to the Daily Mail.

January 9. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, an official government body, was found to be helping asylum seekers overturn their convictions for illegal entry to Britain in order to allow them to receive refugee status and remain in the UK. MPs said the practice could “undermine deterrence” and lead to thousands more illegal arrivals.

January 15. London Police released video footage of a hijab-clad woman who tried to stab a 15-year-old boy on a bus in Lambeth.

January 16. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond revealed that some 1,500 Britons tried to join the Islamic State since 2012. An estimated 800 people, mostly jihadists and family members, successfully entered Syria; roughly half are still there. Another 600 were stopped, either as they tried to leave Britain, or after arriving in Turkey.

January 18. Prime Minister David Cameron announced a plan to invest £20 million (€33 million; $28 million) in English classes for Muslim women to reduce the risk of extremism. He said migrants to Britain who cannot pass an English test within 2-1/2 years of arriving may not be allowed to stay. British Muslim groups accused Cameron of demonizing their communities.

January 19. Muhammad Shamsuddin, a 39-year-old London-based Islamist, was featured in a new documentary called “The Jihadis Next Door.” Shamsuddin, a divorced father of five who lives on state handouts and claims he cannot work because he has “chronic fatigue syndrome,” was filmed preaching hate against non-Muslims on British streets.

January 19. The government launched a new website, “Educate against Hate,” aimed at helping schools and parents to tackle the “spell of twisted ideologies.”

January 22. The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, called on British clergymen to grow beards to reach out to Muslims in their areas.

January 24. Behar Kasemi, a 42-year-old refugee from Kosovo, was jailed for four weeks after he threatened to cut out his wife’s heart because she had become “too English.” He told police: “In my country it is for the women to obey their husbands and look after the children.”

January 25. One in five prisoners in Britain’s top-security prisons are Muslim. The eight Category A prisons contain 5,885 highly dangerous inmates and 1,229 — 20.8% — are Muslim. By comparison, 5.5% of the overall UK population is Muslim.

January 25. The Royal Air Force foiled a jihadist plot by two commercial airline pilots to bomb four British cities. The pilots, who were leaving Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport for a Middle Eastern country, were heard discussing attacks on London, Bath, Brighton and Ipswich. They were using the emergency “Mayday” channel in the belief they were not being monitored.

January 29. A judge in New York sentenced Mahdi Hashi, a 26-year-old Somali-born British citizen, to nine years in prison for joining al-Shabaab, a jihadist group based in East Africa. Hashi, who grew up in London, first came to Britain as a six-year-old when his family fled the civil war in Somalia. His British citizenship was revoked in July 2012 due to his “extremist activities.” He was later deported to the United States.

January 29. Ibrahim Anderson, 38, a convert to Islam, and Shah Jahan Khan, 63, were sentenced to a total of five years in prison for promoting the Islamic State on London’s Oxford Street.

January 30. Three Somalis who gang-raped a 16-year-old girl after luring her into a hotel bathroom in Manchester were sentenced to a total of 29 years in prison. The men, who showed no remorse for their actions, were said to be living according to the laws of Somalia, not Britain.

======================

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 More must-read articles

Socialism, populism and bureaucracy ignore reality

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

Australian politicians ignore forthcoming perils

Australian politicians ignore forthcoming perils  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 18 January 2017

As 2017 dawns, we must hope the Turnbull government is better prepared for the unexpected than it was for a Donald Trump election win. A desperate call to golfer Greg Norman for the president-elect’s telephone number tells us a Hillary Clinton defeat was never seriously contemplated.

Yet, for open minds, Trump was always on the cards. The emotional outpouring over Brexit served notice that a rising tide of nationalism was sweeping the West, not least the US.

By June, nationalistic, anti-­immigration and anti-establishment governments are likely in The Netherlands, France and Italy. Dutch frontrunner Geert Wilders captured the mood when he said: “We want to be in charge of our country, our own money, our own borders and our own ­immigration policy.”

The likely next French president, Francois Fillon, echoes these sentiments, promising to ­implement radical “Thatcherite” economic reforms. In Italy, the increasingly popular Five Star Movement is in striking distance of government. It, too, is anti-immigration and anti-globalisation.

These sentiments are shaping attitudes in Germany, which, sometime in autumn, also will go to the polls. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the country’s third largest political party. It advocates a revival of German nationalism and EU ­reform and has been influential in hardening Chancellor Angela Merkel’s stance on immigration and the treatment of refugees.

Inspired by the Brexit vote, ­nationalists are taking aim at the EU. The Five Star Movement claims the EU is “an absolutely useless formation” and that the eurozone has brought nothing but “social disintegration and unemployment”. Otmar ­Issing, the euro’s architect, ­believes it is a “house of cards” that is ready to collapse.

This is not surprising. Divergent economic performance ­between states and an officious bureaucracy in Brussels have bred British-type resentment, ­espe­cially in the south. Failing Italian banks may bring things to a head. Beyond Italy’s ­capacity to fix, a European rescue, approved by Germany, is ­required. The AfD opposes foreign bailouts but disintegration of the eurozone would make Greece look like a sideshow.

This year also could see China’s banking system unravel. The International Monetary Fund warns of “a growing risk of a banking crisis, or sharply slower growth or both”. Reserves are haem­orrhaging and a deflationary credit crunch seems unavoidable. China is turning inward as industrial unrest and mass unemployment poses a threat to Communist Party rule. A cautious President Xi Jinping has shored up his authority by becoming “core leader”.

Trump’s protectionist inclinations will encounter stiff opposition, especially from the Chinese whose trade surplus shrank 14 per cent last year. Trade wars and ­miscalculations cannot easily be dismissed

While some of Trump’s policies do make sense, he inherits an ageing population with ­expensive healthcare demands, a debt to gross domestic product ratio of almost 80 per cent and a Federal Reserve shifting to a tighter money stance. ­Unfor­tunately for him, his election comes late in the business cycle and his room to move ­responsibly is limited. Animal spirits may be lifting sentiment surveys and the stockmarket, but the hard data tells a different story. Inventories are rising, employment is fading, housing has plateaued, capital ­expenditure is weak and export orders are slipping. There are no quick fixes. When reality and the stockmarket finally collide, watch out below.

The Brexit and Trump phenomena and the political tsunami soon to engulf Europe ­reflect voters’ rejection of an ­establishment they believe has ­betrayed them. Governments may still have legal control but they lack moral authority. The people aren’t stupid. While they were losing their jobs, houses and savings, they witnessed taxpayer bailouts rewarding poor decisions and bad behaviour. They’ve had enough of declining living standards and stagnating income. They resent their taxes being wasted on ill-conceived vote-­buying programs. They want representatives they can trust.

Strident nationalists tap into this anger but they too are victims of ageing demographics, a late-stage business cycle and fiscal and monetary policies that deliver ever-diminishing returns. World debt to GDP ratios are now significantly higher than during the global ­financial crisis.

Throw into this mix Russia, which is in prolonged decline, and the Islamic world, which unravels by the day, and 2017 may well be no ordinary year.

With so many downside risks, you would think that in an ­exposed economy highly dependent on international trade linkages like Australia, the alarm bells would be deafening. Not so. Other than Scott Morrison acknowledging “interesting times may lie ahead and we must prepare”, it seems as if it is business as usual.

Certainly, nothing in the midyear verbal gymnastics justifying a $95 billion deficit across the next four years suggests otherwise. We should feel reassured that “more realistic projections” are being used (were previous projections unrealistic?) and comforted that we’re “picking a safe and careful route” and “a measured ­approach that avoids extreme ­responses”. But what if extreme responses are warranted?

Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s expresses pessimism about Canberra’s ability (in a relatively stable environment) to deliver a balanced budget by 2021. ­Unmoved, the government keeps whistling its happy tunes.

Truth is, Turnbull is frightened of negative opinion polls. Rather than prepare, he prefers to run the risk of a global crisis and leave it to his successors to clean up should one occur. Meantime, his Labor opposition represents yesterday. It still dreams of a mythical workers’ paradise controlled by trade unions, big government and, Keynesian economics. It appears quite ­unsuited for tomorrow’s challenges.

Twenty-five years of uninterrupted growth and unprecedented terms of trade have papered over the structural rigidities that now rob Australia of purpose and competitiveness. To quote the Business Council of Australia’s Jennifer Westacott: “The alternative to purpose — inaction, cynicism and inertia — usually means at best muddling through, and at worst being overwhelmed by external forces or allowing others to imagine your future for you.” Norman won’t be able to help next time.

======================

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.”

cairns-post-editorial-201016

===============================

The Truth Behind ‘Revolutions’

 The Truth Behind Revolutions  By Alexander Light, HumansAreFree.com; 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, HumansAreFree.com;

====================

Previous articles

Posted in Better Government | Comments Off on Socialism, populism and bureaucracy ignore reality

Better-Management Newsletter

Better-Management Newsletters keep you up to date with vital world issues. 

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

Better-Management Newsletter 17 January

 Much of the world waits with a mixture of great expectations as well as fears of what the ‘elite establishment’ will do to counter the US people’s choice for President, Donald Trump.

 I expect it won’t be long before Ban Ki Moon is back from his time as head of the UN and running South Korea – given their present impeachment issues…from Seeking Alpha…

Ban Ki-moon is due to return to South Korea on Thursday, where political parties will lock horns to recruit him. Having stepped down last month as the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban is leaving New York and moving back to Seoul to presumably seek the presidency as his home country grapples with its worst-ever political crisis. “

I am with Trump on whether Russia interfered in the US presidential elections.  I think it is rubbish and I also think the Obama administration has gone too far with the vilification of Putin.  Is this for reasons of domestic politics?  I don’t know.  But here is one school of thought we could possibly consider?

http://www.newstarget.com/2017-01-12-the-coming-famine.html

2016 was a year when the global population continued to grow by a net approx. 90 million.  So we enter another year with more people who are individually consuming more of the world’s renewable and finite resources, driving about 50 million more cars and spewing out more pollutants, cutting and burning off more rainforest, building more houses and enjoying ever greater prosperity.  So we should question how this process will one day end? (Editor’s note: many of  Malthus ideas in his publications in 1799 to 1803 have been well superseded. As well, the rate of increase of population is now reducing   – which isn’t to say it’s not far too high.  Perhaps the tide is turning?)

http://blog.heartland.org/2017/01/economic-ideas-thomas-malthus-on-population-passions-property-and-politics/

Donald Trump’s tenure may be determined by what the military industrial complex allows him to do as well as by the two checks put in place by the US Constitution…the Congress and the Judiciary.  Reality may also cause him problems, and while most folks are focused on his plan to make the USA energy self sufficient, he has been thrown a curved ball by the US oil, gas and coal lobbies, apart from the horrors of the US’ economy and finances.

http://www.eclectications.com/#post2

 The Economy

 The retail sector is now being hit badly by on line purchasing of goods…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4035460-retail-apocalypse-sears-macys-limited-closing-stores?source=email_macro_view_eco_4_27&ifp=0

I cannot see this helping US retailers as Jack Ma will eat their lunch.  From Seeking Alpha…

Donald Trump had a “great meeting” with Alibaba’s (NYSE:BABA) Jack Ma on Monday, when they discussed creating 1M new American jobs in five years. Some are calling the assertion a stretch, however, based on the company’s definition of the goal. “Alibaba will create 1M U.S. jobs by enabling 1M American small businesses and farmers to sell American goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform.”

The CCP is in a dream world of their own as corporate and banks borrow money to pay interest on previous borrowings…from Seeking Alpha…

China is vowing to contain high corporate debt levels and further cut excess coal and steel capacity, as investors scrutinized inlation data for signs of improved demand in the world’s second-largest economy. The consumer price index for December climbed about 2.1%, on higher pork and fuel prices, while the producer price index jumped 5.5%, the fastest pace since September 2011. “

Nothing is ever made without using energy.  So how is the energy scene likely to affect the global economy in 2017?…Gail’s perspective…

http://peakoil.com/consumption/gail-tverberg-2017-the-year-when-the-world-economy-starts-coming-apart

Meanwhile the gold price has been steadily rising and starts the week at USD1,200 per oz with silver at USD16.90/oz.  These are the best volatility indicators available.  My opinion on gold is that the only time anyone will want to hold the metal is when really bad stuff happens – then it will be too late.  Avi Gilbert sums up the reasons why market indicators of what is likely to happen to gold prices cannot be relied upon.  Sentiment is fickle and rational reasons for price moves often turn out to be head fakes…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4036904-sentiment-speaks-yet-another-leading-indicator-gold-bites-dust?source=email_macro_view_top_articles_0_0&ifp=0

 I don’t regard our “investment” in gold or silver and even EEStor as true investments.  They are merely hedges against bad things happening.

But I do expect bad things to happen.  How and when it all plays out just remains to be seen.

Remember that a world with zero or negative interest rates is a world different to the world it has been any time in the history of humanity.  The world where banks print money to avoid going bust is also unique in human history.  So if you don’t think that bad things are going to happen as a result…perhaps it is time to take stock.

If you think we can get to 2030 with 9 billion people on the planet and not have resource allocation issues, then that too should be thought through.  If you didn’t read Chris Martenson’s commentary on this, here it is again….

https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/105291/we-enter-2017-keep-big-picture-mind

Energy

 I think that people who are waiting for atomic fusion as an viable energy source are in for a long wait.  Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) also referred to as “cold fusion” are still being played with and I know of no experiments promising anything in the immediate future.  Meantime a company called Industrial Heat is presently taking one of the key proponents of LENR (Andrea Rossi) to court in the USA…and it is unclear to me whether any prototypes have really ever proven to provide more energy than they consume.

 

The attempts to replicate the sun’s nuclear reactions are also in wait and see mode while gobbling up billions of dollars.  The biggest experiment of all is the ITER Tokamak fusion reactor, yet they have trouble releasing the truth about their claimed successes…so I doubt we will see any fusion reactors contributing to the power grid in my lifetime…

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2017/01/12/the-selling-of-iter/

There is a lot of buzz about uranium and yet prices haven’t yet begun to move much higher.  It could be because producers like Kazakhstan are trying to suppress supply or because India and China are bringing more nukes on line – and of course Japan restarting some of theirs.

http://www.mining.com/worlds-top-uranium-producer-kazakhstan-to-cut-output-by-10/

and

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4036076-uranium-pops-rally-real-time?auth_param=1d3f59:1c7cvh2:4e34bf03e33d6d5e333d3e0fd30b5542&dr=1

and

http://thecrux.com/uranium-is-soaring/

The lowest risk (and uranium producers are all relatively high risk) is of course Cameco but then there are low cost quartile, very high risk  explorers like Fission and Plateau.  My latest acquisition is some more Azincourt which is up in the stratosphere, risk wise…but it is only part of my balancing act to get out of the industry….all too risky for me.  Even so, the availability of enough uranium in the soil in significant enough quantities to meet power generation demand is also rather suspect.  Uranium prices are at rock bottom still due to Japan’s fleet of reactors being off line.  But the situation is expected to change…

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.co.nz/2017/01/peak-uranium-future-of-nuclear-energy.html

and

http://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2017-01-13/The-Uranium-Miner-Sector-Has-Bottomed.html?sitetype=fullsite#.WHqxutS8shY.linkedin

Hence the slow recent rise in the price for yellowcake.

Peak oil is rearing its ugly head…

http://www.alternet.org/environment/economic-oil-crash-around-corner

In the meantime the lies about the sustainability of variable energy producing solar and wind farms needs to be debunked…everything relies on fossil fuels and always will do, until there is a suitable energy storage system that allows continuity of supply into the grid…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2017/01/10/will-dishonesty-kill-cleantech/2/#6ef6c5949122

With more intermittent power generators, storage is the issue…

http://energypost.eu/despite-hype-batteries-arent-cheapest-way-store-energy-grid/

Peak oil never went away, but a 1-2% oversupply was enough to crash global oil prices as everyone competed to sell their output.  More from the latest HSBC report…

http://peakenergy.blogspot.co.nz/2017/01/hsbc-global-oil-supply-report-september.html

Given that the oil used each year comes to about 32billion barrels, the news that only 3.7 billion bbls of new resources was found is a bit of a let-down isn’t it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/oil-discoveries-seen-recovering-after-crashing-to-65-year-low

New finds are small and rare and finds like these below that are now considered newsworthy would never have been thought of as worthy of comment before…

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/148091/exxonmobil_strikes_more_oil_offshore_guyana

and

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4036887-conocophillips-big-new-oil-discovery-alaska-produce-100000-barrels-per-day?source=email_alternative_energy_investing_top_articles_0_0&ifp=0

Today’s oil price is not good enough for the Saudis or the Russians….

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4036894-weekly-oil-markets-recap-saudi-wants-higher-oil-prices?source=email_macro_view_com_1_12&ifp=0

Climate ‘science’

 I am intrigued by the publication of a study of the Great Barrier Reef that showed the coral die-off being witnessed in recent years was previously replicated some 126 thousand years ago during a similar warming episode and yet the findings showed the reef recovered afterwards (Editor’s note: as the GBR has from many short-term cycles such as the recent El Nina).

I understand the opinion of the researchers on the Barrier Reef study was that the warming last time around had nothing to do with humanity and yet this time, the situation is more severe because we humans are causing it with our greenhouse gas emissions.  At least, that was the way it seemed to be portrayed.  Sure there are 7.35 billion more of us humans now.  Sure we do burn fossil fuels, but this is a leap of faith on the part of the researchers who may simply be confirming an existing bias.

Just as I am so reluctant to accept explanations that could mean we humans are going to destroy our world  (well we do not have the power to do that – just the power to cause some human die-off), I see the IPCC brigade refusing to accept the possibility that they could be seeking explanations that confirm their own pre-set world beliefs.  The culling of university faculties to eliminate “climate deniers” hasn’t worked for that IPCC “97%” consensus (Editor’s note: the ‘97%’ has been proven totally invalid, based on fraudulent maths by an Australian academic, but taken up and lorded by many other extremists that deny the evidence against their views).  The debate continues on.  Even America’s new president seems to harbour the same doubts as I.  This exchange between a sceptical senator and the Sierra Club is a case in point….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR_tF5CYlPM

I ask, after 12 years of watching the debate, can someone please convince me with real facts during 2017, one way or the other?  I am not sure that would be important because humanity certainly does not have the capability to do what the IPCC mob want world governments to do anyway.

So the point is moot …. and that is the only part of this debate I am certain on.  But I would like to know so I can at least cut down on my reading. (Editor’s note:  the point is ‘moot’ mainly because so many entrenched interests, including most main stream media, keep publicising the extremist AGW agendas and publicising reports mostly paid for by governments and organisations such as the UN that support the AGW agenda. For those who wish to have a balanced view, there are many relevant articles at .

===================

Better-Management Newsletter 10 January 2017

The forecasts keep on coming, even a forecast that stars will collide…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/06/spectacular-collision-suns-will-create-new-star-night-sky-2022/

Jim Rickards has opinions on how the US Fed will try to stimulate the economy (for the benefit of client banks of course)…

http://thecrux.com/rickards-the-feds-playbook-for-2017/

Gold is likely to have more hiccups as the Fed interferes and while I would buy some gold, I don’t like it as an investment…rather as a hedge against disasters…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034606-gold-bears-warned?source=email_macro_view_top_articles_0_0&ifp=0

By about mid 2017 we will see what sort of problems the UK will have with Brexit.  By the end of November we will see whether I am right or wrong about a global financial crisis.  By year end China may have blown up as may Italy, Greece and even the EU.  However, there are other opinions such as in John Mauldin’s email…

http://ggc-mauldin-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/pdf/OTB_Jan_06_2017.pdf

Geopolitics

 Presidente Duterte seems very naive for someone who drops people out of helicopters….

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-russia-duterte-idUSKBN14Q0Z0

 Russia needs to get a peace agreement in Syria so it can exit while saving face…

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-military-idUSKBN14Q0US

It isn’t yet 20th January but the Trump war of words on trade has already gotten well under way…

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-06/china-said-to-mull-scrutiny-of-u-s-firms-if-trump-starts-feud-ixl2je3s

The Economy

 Sending our production to China so we can consume cheap “stuff” was never a good idea because it was wasteful of energy (while energy was ultra-cheap who cared) but it suited the globalists.  Now Trump wants to change that…Bill Bonner reckons he is in for a shock…

http://thecrux.com/bill-bonner-trump-cant-beat-this-trade-deal/

The problem with globalisation was that it exported high paying jobs to low wage economies leaving people with access to low paying jobs in the OECD country of your choice that globalised…as for the USA…

http://thesovereigninvestor.com/us-economy/third-world-jobs-employment/

As Millennials growth up and grow older, conventional retailers look more and more like dogs…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034505-mall-retailers-clobbered-bezeks-daily-briefing?source=email_macro_view_mar_out_0_8&ifp=0

While the OECD’s too big to fail banks play with gold futures and manipulate the gold price (as admitted as well as proven), the Chinese play their own game and quietly build reserves in readiness for their play to have the Yuan as a major international currency backed by gold….

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034858-west-selling-gold-black-hole?source=email_macro_view_gol_pre_met_1_13&ifp=0

I wonder if the Donald really needs an unstable country “South of the Border” – even with a new wall in place…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034747-mexican-peso-verge-panic?source=email_macro_view_for_0_25&ifp=0

Mr Trump is certainly having some impact there.

Energy

 Where oil goes, there goes our civilisation – at present.  The benefit of reduced oil prices over the last two years equals  USD2 trillion extra spending power for western consumers.  But will this be progressively taken away? And what will the impact of that be?

The week closed with oil holding at Brent USD56.78/bb then opened this week at USD54.95/bbll.  All eyes are on the major players to see whether discipline is established for the 1.8 million bbls per day cut.  Discipline and the oil price will soar.  Ill discipline and it will stagnate.  Plenty of folks think the price will go to USD65/bbl and the IEA reckons that the excess of inventories will be gone in a few months time…and anyway demand already exceeds supply and has for the last few months….so inventories have been falling…

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/147973/Oil_at_65_Per_Barrel_Energy_Pros_Hopeful_In_2017/?all=HG2

But will the major players do their cuts and when?

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/148014/saudis_russia_to_diverge_on_speed_of_oil_output_cuts

In Auckland, the petrol price rose by 10 cents per litre over the weekend.  This reflects the current volatility…I suspect that volatility will increase…

http://energypost.eu/new-outlook-oil-prepare-bumpy-ride-2017/

From a sovereign wealth point of view, the oil producers expect a return to profitability…as this Saudi item demonstrates…

https://www.rt.com/business/372607-saudi-arabia-oil-revenues-2017/

Folks who are either invested in or following Penn West  (TSX:PWT – an oil company operating in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin – principally Alberta) will be interested to see them transitioning from the huge asset divestment and deleveraging programme of 2016 into an organic production growth phase for 2017.  With only a few divestments yet to close, they no longer need a couple of their senior management….

http://web.tmxmoney.com/article.php?newsid=7486628991302357&qm_symbol=PWT

Full slide show of PWT investor presentation of 6 January 2017 here…

http://www.pennwest.com/investors/presentations-webcasts

They get a tick from me at this point.  With an elevated US dollar and most of their costs in CAD, it is interesting to see them getting a good return on their efforts with a favourable currency tailwind.  Ever hopeful, if PWT produces at 35,000bbls per day average during 2017, then with a WTI price averaging say USD60/bbl, they would get an extra tail wind of USD 5/bbl net of hedging…or roughly USD50 million un-budgeted extra revenue during the calendar year.  However I am sure there will be some adversity emerge to dampen spirits.

The point to make though is that the oil business is either boom or bust….and PWT has survived the last bust.  What comes next? Who knows?  Perhaps one day we will get back something of what we have lost since GFC.

Here below is another perspective…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034714-penn-west-petroleum-bust?source=email_alternative_energy_investing_oil_gas_dri_exp_1_9&ifp=0

Changing over to comments on nuclear power/fuel….

I watch uranium (aka yellowcake, also aka U3O8) prices on a daily basis.  But there are signs that shortages will emerge this year and drive prices up.   There is certainly still plenty of building of nuclear power plants going on – just not many in the OECD.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction-milestones-at-new-Chinese-units-0501175.html

and

http://www.economiccalendar.com/2016/12/21/uranium-prices-steady-in-december-market-participants-look-to-better-2017/

As a result  a number of pundits are now picking uranium to do well.  I am sure they are right unless we have either another Chernobyl or even major action from protesters…

http://www.infowars.com/overwhelmed-massachusetts-nuclear-power-plant-spikes-with-radiation/

Nuclear power is a high risk industry even though major actual disasters are very rare (one to date), so if both spot and contract prices for yellowcake  go up to the point where we get near to recovering some of our money, we will take that opportunity and get out.

In the last five years, the only two uranium mining companies with interesting new resources seem to be Fission in Canada (at Paterson Lake South) and Plateau Uranium in Peru (with 1,000 square kms of lease on Macusani Plateau).  Both listed on the TSX and both very high risk.  Neither is producing anything at present and it will take a couple of years for them to come on stream.  Plateau will be very speculative until their latest drill results get announced.

========================

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

The dogma of sustainability

‘Sustainability’ is a modern buzz-word, a fashion, a vital tool for preservation and all-to-often a cover for dangerous covert agendas.

Queensland shows the insanity of renewable targets

Queensland shows the insanity of renewable targets  By Judith Sloan, The Australian, 17 January 2017

Everyone remembers the slogan: Queensland — beautiful one day, perfect the next. I have to inform you there has been an update: Queensland — beautiful one day, insane the next.

The idea that the state could achieve a target of 50 per cent of electricity generated by renewable energy by 2030 is bizarre, unachievable and mischievous — in a word, it is insane. And it is not just because such a target would drive up electricity prices for households and businesses to the high levels of South Australia — probably higher. It also would destroy the value of most of the electricity assets held by the Queensland government. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Given Queensland’s extreme level of government debt, there is no doubt that, in due course, most of the government-owned cor­porations will be sold, particularly if the cost of servicing the debt were to escalate. The tragedy is that it is likely the value of most of these assets will have fallen through the floor by then.

In the meantime, the flow of dividends that the government is relying on to create the appearance of fiscal rectitude will dry up, even if the present unconventional directive of ordering a payout ratio of 100 per cent of profits of the government-owned corporations continues.

An important question is: why would the Palaszczuk government opt for such an economically harmful and foolish policy? We should not forget that Queensland has the lowest percentage of electricity generated by renewable energy — at just more than 4 per cent.

So the policy involves an increase of 46 percentage points in the penetration of renewable energy as a source of electricity generation in the space of 13 years. Pull the other one.

To provide cover for this madcap policy, the Queensland government appointed a “renewable energy expert panel” to provide a veneer of credibility to the feasibility of the target.

With carefully chosen panel members, the draft report — unsurprisingly — concluded that there were no problems with reaching the target and that electricity costs to households and businesses in Queensland would probably stay steady. Again, pull the other one, but I am running out of other ones.

We should just take a look at the figures. There will need to be between 4000 megawatts to 5500MW of new large-scale renewable energy capacity between 2020 and 2030, something that has not even been achieved for Australia as a whole across the same period. The consensus view is that 1500MW of additional renewable energy a year is the top of the range for Australia and Queensland is only 15 per cent odd of that total.

And don’t you just love the prediction of the panel that electricity prices will remain steady for households and business in Queensland as a result of the government’s bold, go-it-alone policy? The background to this, as noted by the Queensland Productivity Commission, is that “since 2007, Australian residential retail electricity prices have increased faster than any other OECD country and Queensland prices have increased faster than any other state or territory”.

Mind you, it is clear why the Palaszczuk government didn’t simply ask the Queensland Productivity Commission to analyse the feasibility of the 50 per cent state renewable energy target. That would be because it wouldn’t be seen as “reliable”, having made the wholly rational suggestion last year that the state government withdraw the generous and unjustified subsidies to households with solar panels on their roofs.

Premier Annastacia Palasz­czuk was not having a bar of that idea. How could she continue to conflate small-scale solar panels with large-scale renewable energy, thereby buttressing the support of the public (well, the better-heeled part of the public that can afford solar panels) for anything called renewable energy? If X is good, 2X must be better and 12X must be a blast. Continuing to subsidise households with solar panels is part of the political game, hang other electricity users.

So what does that “independent” panel conclude about the impact of the 50 per cent renewables energy target on electricity pricing? The answer is “broadly cost neutral to electricity consumers where the cost of funding the policy action is recovered through electricity market mechanisms”. (This is code for: we could always skin taxpayers or ask Canberra to chip in.)

But here’s the rub: “This occurs as a result of increased renewable generation placing downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices, which is projected in the modelling to offset the payments to renewables.”

Mind you, the point is added that “the pricing outcome is not guaranteed and could differ, for example, if existing generation capacity is withdrawn from the market, especially coal-fired generation”.

Think about this. What the panel is saying is: if existing generators, which are owned by the government in Queensland, are driven out of the market, which is likely because of the renewables energy target — see the South Australian and Victorian cases as live examples — then prices will rise. And the capital value of these withdrawn government-owned generators will be close to zero, having probably experienced years of underinvestment in maintenance.

This leaves the question: why would the Queensland government decide on such a dimwitted, self-defeating and economically damaging policy position?

In keeping with the rule of following the money, it is clear that the lobbying efforts of the clean energy rent-seekers have been directed at the Queensland government, in particular.

After all, the large energy providers generally have a foot in both camps — conventional electricity generation plus renewable energy assets.

But they don’t stand to lose anything in Queensland by virtue of the astronomical state renewable energy target because the conventional electricity generation assets are all owned by the government. If these generators are driven out of business, it’s a big plus for them, not a negative.

Silly estimates of the gains in employment and billions of dollars of investment, mainly in the regions, associated with renewable energy make gormless politicians simply salivate. The sad thing is that it will be lose-lose for Queenslanders down the track.

The challenge for federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is to convince state governments to junk their vacuous, go-it-alone renewable energy targets that will lead to even higher electricity ­prices and further threaten the reliability of the grid.

====================

Solar and wind power simply don’t work

Solar and wind power simply don’t work  By Keith DeLacy, former Queensland State Labor Minister, The Australian, 22 June 2016

One policy which seems to have escaped scrutiny during this election campaign is Labor’s commitment to increase the Renewable Energy Target to 50 per cent by 2030. I am surprised because it is a proposal that has enormous ramifications for economic growth and living standards, and disproportionate impacts on traditional Labor constituencies.

The problem we have in Australia is when we talk renewable energy we are talking wind and solar only — low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy.

According to the Department of Industry and Science wind currently generates 4.1 per cent and solar 2 per cent of Australia’s electricity. But even this is highly misleading because it is such low value power. You could close it down tomorrow (which it regularly does by itself) and it would make no difference to supply.

If we talk about total energy, as opposed to just electricity, wind and solar represent 1 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption. This despite billions of dollars of investment, subsidies, creative tariffs, mandates, and so on.

Solar and wind simply don’t work, not here, not anywhere.

The energy supply is not dense enough. The capital cost of consolidating it makes it cost prohibitive. But they are not only much more expensive because of this terminal disadvantage, they are low value intermittent power sources — every kilowatt has to be backed up by conventional power, dreaded fossil fuels. So we have two capital spends for the same output — one for the renewable and one for the conventional back-up. Are you surprised it is so much more expensive, and inefficient, and always will be? So wind and solar, from a large scale electricity point of view, are duds. Now I know that will send the urgers into paroxysms of outrage. But have you ever seen an industry that so believed its own propaganda. Note, when they eulogise the future of renewables they point to targets, or to costly investments, never to the real contribution to supply.

Let’s look overseas where many countries have been destroying their budgets and their economies on this illusion for longer and more comprehensively than we in Australia. The Germans are ruing the day they decided to save the world by converting to solar and wind. Germany has spent $US100bn on solar technology and it represents less than 1 per cent of their electricity supply.

Energy policy has been a disaster. Subsidies are colossal, the energy market is now chaotic, industry is decamping to other jurisdictions, and more than a million homes have had their power cut off.

It is reported electricity prices in Germany, Spain and the UK increased by 78 per cent, 111 per cent and 133 per cent between 2005 and 2014 as they forced additional renewable capacity into their electricity markets. Sunny Spain used to be the poster boy for renewables in Europe — photovoltaic cells and wind turbines stretching on forever. Now they are broke, winding back subsidies, even the feed-in tariffs which were guaranteed for 20 years. But wait, what about the green energy jobs that everybody gushes about? Spain has an unemployment rate of 21 per cent with a youth rate of 45.5 per cent.

Britain is little better. Subsidies are being wound back, and a Department of Energy report points out that in 2013, the number of households in fuel poverty in England was estimated at 2.35 million representing around 10.4 per cent of all households.

It is no better in the US either. States with renewable energy mandates are backtracking faster than Sally Pearson can clear hurdles. Ohio has halved its mandate level (it was 25 per cent by 2025) because of high costs. West Virginia has repealed its mandate because of high costs, and New Mexico has frozen its mandates. Kansas was repealing its mandate which reportedly would save ratepayers $171m, representing $4367 for each household, and so the dismal story goes on. The US Department of Energy has found electricity prices have risen in states with mandates twice as fast as those with no mandate. As of 2013 California was the only state to adopt a feed-in tariff for solar power. It was immediately dubbed a failure by the renewable energy community because it offered only 31 cents per kWh, only five times the rate for conventional base load power.

Ah, but Asian countries are jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe. China built one new coalfired power plant every week in 2014, and India’s coal-powered investment in that same year equalled the total electricity capacity of NSW and Queensland. To summarise — with all of the trillions spent worldwide on wind and solar, wind currently represents 1.2 per cent of global consumption of energy, and solar 0.2 per cent.

The good news, it is possible to reduce fossil fuel use in electricity generation — through hydro-electricity and nuclear fuel. Plenty of countries have done it — Canada 60 per cent hydro and 15 per cent nuclear; Sweden 45 per cent hydro and 48 per cent nuclear; Switzerland 54 per cent hydro and 41 per cent nuclear; France 11 per cent hydro and 79 per cent nuclear.

But Australia has zero tolerance of these two workable alternatives to fossil fuels. At least we are consistently inconsistent.

So where does that leave us? On the basis of evidence everywhere we could easily double the price of electricity and get nowhere near the 50 per cent target. What would that mean?

First, it means rapidly disappearing blue collar jobs in high energy industries like manufact­uring, car and ship building, smelting and refining, steel making and food processing. There may be still some construction jobs, but they will largely be assembly only, as all of the components will come from those countries more interested in growing the economy and eliminating poverty than stoking the warm inner glow. Make no bones about it, a clean green economy has no place for high-vis shirts.

Second, rapidly rising electricity prices and the subsequent increase in the cost of living, disproportionately affects those at the bottom of the income scale.

Policies like this are OK for the Greens. They can keep their virtue intact because they never have to deliver. As Gough Whitlam once said, only the impotent are pure.

Mainstream parties don’t have that luxury. They need to look at the true costs, and benefits, of all policy proposals.

Keith DeLacy is a former Labor treasurer of Queensland.

==========================

The dangers of ‘sustainability’

The dangers of ‘sustainability’  By Peter Wood, Rachelle Peterson; National Association of Scholars, 29 March 2015

Sustainability: Higher Education’s new fundamentalism

The full report can be downloaded from http://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS-Sustainability-Digital.pdf

 “Sustainability” is a key idea on college campuses in the United States and the rest of the Western world. To the unsuspecting, sustainability is just a new name for environmentalism. But the word really marks out a new and larger ideological territory in which curtailing economic, political, and intellectual liberty is the price that must be paid now to ensure the welfare of future generations.

This report is the first in-depth critical study of the sustainability movement in higher education. The movement, of course, extends well beyond the college campus. It affects party politics, government bureaucracy, the energy industry, Hollywood, schools, and consumers. But the college campus is where the movement gets its voice of authority, and where it moulds the views and commands the attention of young people.

The sustainability movement has distorted higher education

While we take no position in the climate change debate, we focus in this study on how the sustainability movement has distorted higher education. We examine the harm it has done to college curricula and the limits it has imposed on the freedom of students to inquire and to make their own decisions. Our report also offers an anatomy of the campus sustainability movement in the United States. We explain how it came to prominence and how it is organized.

We also examine the financial costs to colleges and universities in their efforts to achieve some of the movement’s goals. Often the movement presents its program as saving these institutions money. But we have found that American colleges and universities currently spend more than $3.4 billion per year pursuing their dreams of “sustainability” at a time when college tuitions are soaring and 7.5 percent of recent college graduates are unemployed and another 46 percent underemployed.  In addition to the direct costs of the movement, we examine the growing demands by sustainability advocates that colleges and universities divest their holdings in carbon-based energy companies without regard to forgone income or growth in their endowments. What makes “sustainability” so important that institutions facing financial distress are willing to prioritize spending on it? In this report, we examine that question.

The belief that the world is experiencing catastrophic warming

Because the idea of “anthropogenic global warming”—or “climate change”—is so closely interwoven with the sustainability movement, we devote a chapter early in the report to laying out the arguments on both sides of this debate. The appeal of the sustainability movement depends to a great extent on the belief that the world is experiencing catastrophic warming as a result of human activities that are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Is this belief warranted? We are neutral on this proposition, but we stand by the principle that all important ideas ought to be open to reasoned debate and careful examination of the evidence. This puts us and others at odds with many in the sustainability movement whose declared position is that the time for debate is over and that those who persist in raising basic questions are “climate deniers.” The “debate-is-over” position is itself at odds with intellectual freedom and is why the campus sustainability movement should be examined skeptically.

A hardening of irrational demands

We support good stewardship of natural resources, but we see in the sustainability movement a hardening of irrational demands to suspend free inquiry in favor of unproven theories of imminent catastrophe. And we see, under the aegis of sustainability, a movement that often takes its bearings from its hostility towards material prosperity, consumerism, free markets, and even democratic self-government.

We offer ten recommendations under three categories:

Respect Intellectual Freedom

  1. Create neutral ground. Colleges and universities should be neutral in important and unresolved scientific debates, such as the debate over dangerous anthropogenic global warming. Claims made on the authority of “science” must be made on the basis of transparent evidence and openness to good arguments regardless of their source.
  2. Cut the apocalyptic rhetoric. Presenting students with a steady diet of doomsday scenarios undermines liberal education.
  3. Maintain civility. Some student sustainability protests have aimed at preventing opponents from speaking.
  4. Stop “nudging.” Leave students the space to make their own decisions about sustainability, and free faculty members from the implied pressure to imbed sustainability into the curricula of unrelated courses.

Uphold Institutional Integrity

  1. Withdraw from the ACUPCC. Colleges that have signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment should withdraw in favor of open-minded debate on the subject.
  2. Open the books and pull back the sustainability hires. Make the pursuit of sustainability by colleges financially transparent. The growth of administrative and staff positions in sustainability drives up costs and wrongly institutionalizes advocacy at the expense of education.
  3. Uphold environmental stewardship. Campuses need to recover the distinction between real environmental stewardship and a movement that uses the term as a springboard for a much broader agenda.
  4. Credential wisely. Curtail the aggrandizement of sustainability as a subject. Sustainability is not a discipline or even a subject area. It is an ideology.

Be Even-Handed

  1. Equalize treatment for advocates. Treat sustainability groups on campus under the same rubric as other advocacy groups. They should not enjoy privileged immunity from ordinary rules and special access to institutional resources.
  2. Examine motives. College and university boards of trustees should examine demands for divestment from fossil fuels skeptically and with full awareness of the ideological context in which these demands are made.

The sustainability movement has become a major force in American life that has largely escaped serious critical scrutiny. The goal of this report is to change that by examining for the first time the movement’s ideological, economic, and practical effects on institutions of higher education.

==============================

Previous Articles

Posted in Environmental battles | Comments Off on The dogma of sustainability

Elitists, Lefties and PC/progressivists 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.

The censorious, mollycoddled environment of modern academe

The censorious, mollycoddled environment of modern academe  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 17 January 2017

 As if Australia Day isn’t dangerous enough for the culturally insensitive, we are now advised not to celebrate the Australian belief in mateship and the fair go. The language police at Macquarie University have declared these are dangerous stereotypes, generalised images of a person or group that “may have potentially harmful real-world consequences”. The university’s latest guide on correct speech also instructs Queenslanders not to stereotype those living south of the Tweed as Mexicans, implying that they are “hot-blooded, irrational, untrustworthy”.

Extreme linguistic governance of this kind was once restricted to religious sects and the political fruitcake fringe. Today it is chillingly mainstream; universities see it as part of their duty of care to offer written guides, training courses and counselling on “appropriate” and “inappropriate” language.

Since one can never be sure about the latest rules, every utterance is potentially suspect. Irony and sarcasm must be avoided at all costs. “To talk about a ‘huntsperson spider’ is an ostensibly humorous ‘non-discriminatory’ act of renaming,” the Macquarie University guide intones. “The joke here nonetheless mocks serious uses of non-discriminatory language and the struggle for gender equity.”

Incredibly, this is a statement of official policy at a major university, signed off, presumably, by the dean and other serious people. If perchance it is slipped past their guard they must remove it forthwith from the university’s website, for the damage imposed by this passive-aggressive chin-stroking is considerable.

The regulation of speech is one of the maladies of academe investigated by British sociologist Frank Furedi in a new book exploring the infantilisation of students.

The notion that people in their late teens and early 20s could not be trusted to act as adults, and that university authorities should protect their moral welfare in loco parentis, disappeared in the wake of the campus radicals in the 1960s.

Furedi, once a campus radical himself, says today’s academic paternalism is far more insidious. The baby boomer generation was taught that “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”. The millennial generation is warned constantly of the harm language causes “vulnerable” people. Indeed, they themselves are vulnerable and must be protected from the psychological damage presumed to flow from linguistic aggression.

To explain how yesterday’s student militants evolved into today’s moral guardians, Furedi describes the rise of a risk-averse culture where precaution and safety have become fundamental moral values.

“The term ‘safe’ signals more than the absence of danger: it also conveys the connotation of a virtue,” he says.

“The representation of safety as an end in itself is integral to a moralising project of monitoring both individual and interpersonal behaviour.”

Censorship became unfashionable in the late 1960s when it was seen as an instrument of repression. Today it has become a form of therapy, underpinned by a cultural script of vulnerability.

The adjective “vulnerable” has mutated into a noun. The downtrodden have been recast as “the vulnerable”; the wretched have become “the most vulnerable”; universities have been transformed from an intellectual adventure into safe spaces for “vulnerable students”.

We are right to worry about the resilience of those who emerge from these cosseted, hypersensitive campuses. The vulnerable are inclined to fatalism, since vulnerability presents as a permanent feature. They are seldom encouraged to draw on inner strengths to make themselves less vulnerable. Indeed, to suggest they should toughen up is condemned as victim-blaming, denying the vulnerable the ritualistic empathy to which they feel entitled.

Vulnerability, together with the ethos of survivalism — the modern belief that danger lurks around every corner — are the narratives that bolster the infantilisation of students. Hence the semantic tsars at Macquarie deem that the expression “Australians believe in the fair go” is not just distasteful but “potentially harmful” to non-Australians or to Australians who don’t think that way. The purpose of their rules is to develop “a university environment characterised by sensitivity to cultural diversity, and in which the number and seriousness of discriminatory experiences are reduced or eliminated”.

Censorship, like compulsory seat belts or fences around swimming pools, is a matter of public health and safety. So, when activist Maryam Namazie was banned from speaking at Warwick University, the student union justi?ed itself with “language that would have done any risk manager proud”, writes Furedi.

“Researching Namazie and her organisation had raised a number of ?ags,” declared the students. “We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus,” they wrote. It is not the intended meaning of words but their supposed impact that matters. “Verbal puri?cation is not simply directed at cleansing politically objectionable words but also at providing psychological relief,” Furedi concludes.

It may be too early to predict what lasting effect the censorious, mollycoddled environment of modern academe will have young graduates.

What Happened to the University? by Frank Furedi is published by Routledge and is available on Amazon. Nick Cater is the Menzies Research Centre’s executive director.

====================

The Left’s near-total dominance of the political stage in Australia

The Left’s near-total dominance of the political stage in Australia  By Dr Michael Galak, Quadrant Online, 12 January 2017

No punches were thrown, but festive gatherings with young relatives saw me accused of bigotry, racism, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia. How did conservatives allow an entire generation to be brainwashed? We forgot that truth cannot defend itself

The advent of a new year is a good time to review the one gone by, to sum it up and balance one’s moral and ethical scorecard. Is the ledger mostly in the black or is red ink splashed all over? Was I a reasonably decent human or an idiot? A genius or a schlemiel? Was I treated well by others? Did I treat others the way I would want to be treated? It does feel like a regular corporate performance review, with the difference being that, as long as we are still alive, there’s always the chance to make things right.

This festive season was unusual for many reasons. The closely placed succession of Hanukkah, Christmas and  New Year’s Eve parties offered plenty of opportunities for enjoying the unhealthy and sedentary, eating oily or sugary foods (Christmas puddings, stollen, latkes…) and  drinking alcohol in amounts considered prejudicial by the moralisers who seem to be popping up at every corner, dubious statistics in hand.  (I especially enjoyed having my red wine consumption made the subject of a stern tut-tutting by a chain smoking GP.) Most important, the past weeks offered an opportunity to talk with friends, relatives, children and whoever else came along to celebrate at the festive table. That is where the long-ignored obvious struck and, most importantly, sank in.

Contrary to the long-held convention of not discussing politics, religion and, yes, money, discussions around many a table or a backyard barbeque inevitably turned to Brexit and The Donald’s election victory. In all these exchanges I was a pitiful minority of one, tolerated while treated with the sort of polite and indulgent condescension usually reserved for small children and the mentally unwell or, in my case, a conservative old codger. This patronising came dangerously close to contempt for my presumed moral turpitude: who else but the morally deficient could defend the outrage of those in the UK and America voting other than the way their presumed betters wished and expected? My long-suffering wife succeeded in transmitting the ‘please keep your mouth shut’ signal. All it took for this well-trained husband of 43 years to do as bid was a well-aimed kick under the table. She Who Must Be Obeyed was indeed obeyed, but not before I noticed some peculiarities of the discourse that prompted the thoughts you are reading now.

The Left’s near-total dominance of the political stage in Australia is no news to me, of course. However, the personal experience of being all but openly branded a bigot, a racist and a dangerously unhinged anencephalic, who is also a misogynist, a homophobe and, given a chance, a potential mass-murder of Muslims left me quite shocked. Needless to say – I am none of those things. But perceptions matter and people, like myself, of conservative political leanings are branded morally inadequate precisely on the basis of our convictions, as Quadrant Online contributor Bill Wyndham noted some months ago.

Like all previous generations, ours is faced with the evergreen problem of seemingly unbridgeable conflict of opinion between parents and their children, an inter-generational clash of weltanschauungs. This kind of a conflict is inevitable, as old as humanity itself. Children cannot be carbon copies of their parents; the world is evolving in directions sometimes inimical to parental liking. That is normal. That is how it is and I am not too fussed about that.

This inevitability of  societal change reminds me of an excruciatingly funny cartoon.  Picture two long-haired hippy parents, equipped with  customary guitars, joints and bandanas, sitting on the floor, agog, listening to their child’s angst, formerly their exclusive domain, and telling them, “You are way too old to understand!” O tempora o mores! However, the aim of this piece is not to entertain because there’s nothing funny about the totality of the thorough indoctrination of our population, especially of our youth. It is so near to being complete that any degree of a dissent is regarded as being akin to a crime against humanity.

There used to be a gaping chasm between the beliefs, convictions and responses of the young and those of their more conservative parents. Things are changing though. The truism, ‘If you are 20 and not a Communist, you have no heart; if at 40 you are still a Communist, you have no brain’ still holds true. However, as far as I can see, the timescale to enlightenment is growing longer, so that people who are old enough to know better still espouse the same leftist garbage as in their teens. Whether this is the result of an unwillingness to go against the flow, a manifestation of true belief or, perhaps, a simple desire to avoid harsh words and inter-generational conflict is hard to say. Whatever the reason, the Left’s narrative is now dominant, regarded by those who subscribe to it as what is, or should be, the societal norm.

During this festive season, I was confronted with the stark realisation that our children have absorbed the teachings and beliefs of those whom we, us conservatives, regard with shoulder-shrugging, eyeball-rolling sighs. It is no longer enough to react this way. The changing civic climate brings all of us to the situation which was existing in pre-revolutionary Russia, when not to be on the side of the Revolution meant universal ostracism and  contempt, never mind the subsequent horrors inflicted on those who declined to bow before their new masters.

Largely silent at my wife’s command (except for those few moments when I could no longer bite my tongue), I observed the flow of  festive-table discourse and was struck by the inability of the young to think independently, their unwillingness to deviate from authorised dogma, be it  about global warming, an Australian Republic, immigration and all the many sacred cows of the politically correct. All of these and many other topics were discussed exclusively from the Left’s viewpoint and any variance led to immediate accusations of, you guessed it, bigotry, racism and any other ‘ism’ most suited at any particular moment to silence a dissenting opinion. In the end, I withdrew from  discussion, marveling instead at the fine work academia, schools, mass media and our political class had done in placing beyond the pale the free, polite and logical exchange of views. Some sober thoughts emerged between mouthfuls of pudding and I’d like to share them with Quadrant Online readers.

  • The Jesuits have long claimed that a child given unto their guidance until the age of seven will be theirs for life. How did it happen that we allowed our children to be instructed at government-run schools, wherein they are tirelessly indoctrinated in the Left’s ideological framework? Worse than that, why did we allow it to happen with barely a murmur of dissent?
  • While we adults of older generations were exchanging views in the voice of reason (some of us anyway), how is that the propagandists of our school systems’ classrooms were allowed to inculcate no opinions and beliefs but their own. How is that even governments deferred to these chalk-dusted commissars of political correctness? Where did the Safe Schools programme come from and how was it allowed to spread everywhere? Why is that only the catastropharian view of climate change is taught, never balanced nor presented as but one perspective among a spectrum of views.
  • While we were preaching to the converted — ie., each other — the Left was proselytizing and increasing its constituency everywhere, including via the imported beliefs of immigrants whose view of the relationship between creed and state are at odds with our secular liberties and political traditions.
  • While we were proud to deal with facts and figures in our arguments, the Left traded in emotion and used all the manipulative techniques at its disposal to make those lessons stick.
  • While we were talking in respectful whispers at civilized conferences, the Left was screaming their heads off on university campuses, which became hot-beds of radicalism and know-nothing nihilism.
  • While we understood that democracy is the rule of law, to be honoured by so-called progressives and conservatives alike, the Left promoted mob rule and the howling down of those it knew to the fetid depths of its arrogance should not be allowed to be heard. The support for ‘unfreedom’ remains one of the Left’s articles of faith — a platform from which it is a surprisingly small step to dictatorship and tyranny.
  • While we were telling all and sundry that people are responsible for their lives, the Left was fostering a nation of victims. Thus do see women, for example, taking loud 0ffence at what should be normal, civil discourse. A Quadrantcontributor not so long wrote an article that incurred the wrath of social-media feminists; their response was not to request  equal space, which would have been given, but to web-search the email address of his boss and blitz him an co-workers with slanders and demands that he be fired. He survived the assault but to this day remains shaken by the experience.
  • While we were supporting the family as a cornerstone of  civilisation, the Left advocated the concepts of  ‘free love’, ‘if it feels good do it’, and  ‘sex is as natural as drinking a glass of water’, bringing the institution of family close to extinction.
  • While we were extolling freedom of speech as the most precious fruit of liberty’s tree, the Left has done its worst to shut it down with Section 18C, projecting a bogus bigotry onto its opponents for fear of open criticism of its inane fantasies and contempt for the common sense.

This list is far from complete and I am certain readers could extend it. The most depressing thought is that we have lost the battle of ideas to the heirs of Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg. That these ideas have been discredited by universal failure and the rivers of blood they spawned matters not at all to their advocates. Winning matters. Control matters. Power for the sake of power matters.

So why is conservatism such a hard sell? Yes, as noted above, the Left’s long march through the institutions has placed its preachers in every pulpit, but there is another reason as well: conservatives are fighting the right war with the wrong tactics. Conservatives do not target such human failings as jealousy, envy, immediate gratification urges and the resentment of success. On a neurophysiological level, conservatives appeal to the pre- and frontal cortex, where the ability to reason resides. The Left, by contrast, appeals to the limbic system, which is responsible for emotions.

Am I suggesting that we should debase our principles by pandering to baser emotions? No, not at all.

What I am saying is that, rather than preaching to our own conservative choir, we need to fight for the truth — fight with the same gusto and determination that characterises the Left. That means teaching our young a real history of the world and of our country, in particular the irresponsibility of the Left and its awful consequences. Take the plight of some Aborigines, for example. We can no longer tolerate the glib simplicity of attributing violence and hopelessness to the First Fleet; rather, we need to highlight — to scream if necessary — that it is a result of a fostered culture of victimhood which denies personal responsibility and underwrites dysfunction with sit-down money and excuses.

To do this, we must confront the teachers and academics whose stock in trade are these and so many other intellectual toxins. Speak up and oppose, say, the Safe Schools agenda and, yes, sure as eggs you will be branded a homophobe, but so what? You’re not a homophobe and you know you’re not, so your conscience is clear. The enmity of the appalling, far from being a gag, should be worn as a badge of honour.

This year, 2017, marks the centenary of the Bolsheviks’ takeover in Moscow and the mass loss of human life and dignity that followed. My hope is that this date will be both a milestone and a cue to teach our young that the seemingly lofty ideas so beloved by the Left are nothing but the tools of slavery and oppression. The task, the necessity and, indeed, the destiny of a healthy conservatism is the inoculation of our young against the malignant virus of totalitarianism and its bodyguard of lies, which the Left spreads with every breath. The only way to do it is through active knowledge of true history.

Will mine be a cry in the wilderness? I hope not.

Dr Michael Galak and his family came to Australia as refugees from the Soviet Union in 1978

====================

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

=======================

 

 

Previous articles

 

Posted in Politically Correct | Comments Off on Elitists, Lefties and PC/progressivists threaten democracy

The US Empire: rise, fall, and now 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.

Will The CIA Assassinate Trump? Ron Paul Warns Of “More Powerful, Shadow Government”

Will The CIA Assassinate Trump – Ron Paul Warns Of More Powerful, Shadow Government  By Mac Slavo, Zerohedge, 16 January 2017

It isn’t just that Donald Trump routinely thumbs his nose at the establishment, insults media figures he sees as unfair and bucks conventional wisdom.

It is that President-elect Trump is defying the will of the deep state, military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States. That is why he is treading dangerous waters, and risks the fate of JFK.

Trump publicly dissed the intelligence community assessments on Russian hacking; they retaliated with a made up dossier about the alleged Trump-Putin ‘golden shower’ episode.

While it may be a silly falsehood, it may also be serving as a final warning that they get to script reality, not him.

Perhaps they want Trump to feel blackmailed and controlled by alluding to fake dirt, while reminding him of the real dirt they hold on his activities (whatever it may be).

Insulting the credibility of the intelligence community in a public way – as the man elected to the highest office in the land – is liable to ruffle a few feathers, and it could provoke a serious response.

Trump knows the power of the people he is taunting, but he may not be aware of where the line is between play in political rhetoric and actually irritating and setting off those who control policy.

There is plenty of Trump misbehavior that can be simply written off, or trivialized, but cutting into the war and statecraft narrative of the shadow government steering this deep state is a deviation too far.

It is one thing to play captain, but another to imagine that you steer the ship. They are happy for Trump to take all the prestige and privileges of the office; but not for him to cut into the big business of foreign conflict, the undercurrent of all American affairs, the dealings in death, drugs, oil and weapons, and the control of people through a manipulation of these affairs.

If President Trump takes his rogue populism too far, he will suffer the wrath of the same people who took out Kennedy… there are some things that are not tolerated by those who are really in charge.

And now leaders in the Senate are warning President-elect Trump about the stupidity of going against the national-security establishment.

As Jacob G. Hornberger warns:

In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of “being really dumb.”… for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you…. He’s being really dumb to do this.”

No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment […] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.

Kennedy… After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy’s murder.

Kennedy’s antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.

Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.

And to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.

It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.

The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.

There are several powers behind the throne that have wanted to ensure that presidents don’t let the power go to their head, or try to change course from the carefully arranged crisis-reaction-solution paradigm.

True peace is not good for military industrial complex business; true peace, without the persistence of grave threats, and plenty of sparks of chaos to back it up, cannot be tolerated.

As things have progressed today, making friendly with Putin, and calling off the war with Russia may simply be impermissible. If Trump is attempting to negotiate his own peace – and sing along with Frank Sinatra’s “My Way” at the inauguration, then he is in for a very rude awakening.

If, on the other hand, he is the Trump card being played by this very same establishment, then things may develop according to the same ultimate objectives, albeit through a ‘wild card’ path styled after the ego of President Trump.

With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place.

As SHTF has previously reported, the continuity of government “Doomsday” command-and-control planes were brought out after the election as a public show of power to Trump and the American people. The shadow government is real, and for now, maintains dominance.

Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul warned of the shadow government taking control of President Trump’s administration before it was even formed: You know, we look at the president, we look at what he said, we look at what he might do, and we look at his advisors, but quite frankly, there is an outside sourcewhich we refer to as a deep state or a shadow government. There is a lot of influence by people that are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president and on up. I mean, you take for instance how our government gets involved in elections around the world, whether it’s in the Middle East or Ukraine.

Trump is reportedly retaining his own private security, bucking the protocol of Secret Service detail… and this clearly a sign that he and his team have thought through security issues and the possibility of an inside job.

This is prudent, but these deep state guys have access throughout the system at every level. They are anywhere, and everywhere. Probably someone that Trump trusts. There are certainly many threats.

For the sake of the stability of this country, and President-elect Trump’s own life, let us hope that they stay several steps ahead of anyone who might want to do him harm.

This is eerie, but real.

*  *  *

On a personal level, it seems wise to prepare for the possibility of widespread unrest due to political instability.

Tread carefully at the scene of the inauguration, and any high profile political gatherings or demonstrations.

Riots at the inauguration, or in cities throughout the country are possible, maybe even likely, as is an attempted assassination. Even if this scenario is a long shot, and taboo to even discuss, the role of the CIA in past coups, revolutions and uprisings is enough to warrant taking precautions.

There is an element of chaos present during this unprecedented transfer of power to the 45th president, and a wounded animal in the defensive-attack posture.

If you are at a protest, either as a participant, or as an observer, remain aware of the larger actions of the crowd, identify potential provocateurs and stay away from points of potential violence. Police could use anti-riot gear and spray the crowd, fire rubber bullet, use microwave heating or auditory devices, make mass arrests, or block off large portions of the city.

If anything significant happens, use any available phone or camera to film it, but be prepared for confiscation or technologies to wipe phones. An EMF shielded bag could block this; live stream or upload instantly to as many video platforms as possible, but they have been known to jam cell phone signals at mass gatherings and demonstrations. Make copies and store a physical copy, and several back-ups.

If you are at home, do not wait for the all clear signal from the authorities, shelter in place and prepare to ride out a storm, if something sensational or deadly takes place and panic spreads. Do not trust the media; and try to take notice if a coup has taken place, and constitutional authority subverted.

==================

Murdering the Innocent to Support the Lie

Murdering the Innocent to Support the Lie  By Paul Craig Roberts, 6 January 2017

As my readers know, I reported, factually, on the Boston Marathon alleged bombing case. I interviewed carefully the pro bono attorney, John Remington Graham, who intervened in behalf of the Russian aunt, a lawyer in the Russian Federation, in behalf of the falsely convicted younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar, the older brother having been murdered by the FBI. Graham conclusively proved that the FBI’s own evidence proved beyond any doubt that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was innocent, which means so was the older brother.

It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that there was no real bombing at the Boston Marathon and that the alleged terrorist event, using crisis actors, was an orchestration designed to convince Americans that they really were under a “Muslim threat.” The entire foreign policy of the United States in the 21st century is based on an orchestrated “Muslim threat.”

The orchestrated threat was also used for a practice exercise in closing down one of America’s largest cities in order to manhunt with intent to kill a young man chosen as the villain for the orchestrated event. American citizens were forced at gunpoint out of their homes while Homeland Security, a Nazi reminiscent name from the Hitler era, disrupted the life of an entire city and its airport service in behalf of this orchestrated event that murdered American civil liberty. The entire exercise was based on a lie, an event that never happened, like Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and so forth. Just another lie in behalf of the “exceptional people.”

A number of websites have disproved the false case against the Tsarnaev brothers. Attorney John Remington Graham has brought the case to the justice authorities, but the US Department of Justice (sic) has no interest whatsoever in justice.

Now comes forward an attorney, Mary Maxwell with a book. It is available online free. I read the first eight chapters, which was sufficient to comfirm me in my independent conclusion that there was no Boston Marathon bombing by terrorists.

I recommend to you Mary Maxwell’s account. However, I will say that I believe that she uses irony excessively and that on occasions her irony gets in the way of the factual message. Knowing this, stick with it, and read her account.

Irony is the style that she has chosen, and we must respect a person prepared to stand up to the murderous American establishment and to challenge one of the founding myths of the American Police State and Washington’s wars against the world.

Any US citizen that believes the falsified case of the Boston Marathon bombing is a dangerous and direct threat to American civil liberty and to the lives of millions of people on planet Earth.

If Americans do not wake up to the orchestrations to which they are subjected, they will forfeit their freedom. And they will not be able to prevent Earth’s destruction in thermo-nuclear war.

The Russians and the Chinese are individually and together more powerful than Washington, and they are not going to put up with the lies with which insouciant Americans are content.

If Americans cannot take back their country from self-serving oligarchs, Americans are doomed.

=======================

The real strategic threats are not from Russia

The real strategic threats are not from Russia  By Paul Craig Roberts, 29 December 2016

The English language Russian news agency, Sputnik, reports that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is advising US president-elect Donald Trump how to “bring the United States and Russia closer together to offset China’s military buildup.”https://sputniknews.com/politics/201612271049024500-kissinger-trump-russia/

If we take this report at face value, it tells us that Kissinger, an old cold warrior, is working to use Trump’s commitment to better relations with Russia in order to separate Russia from its strategic alliance with China.

China’s military buildup is a response to US provocations against China and US claims to the South China Sea as an area of US national interests. China does not intend to attack the US and certainly not Russia.

Kissinger, who was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International studies for a dozen years, is aware of the pro-American elites inside Russia, and he is at work creating for them a “China threat” that they can use in their effort to lead Russia into the arms of the West. If this effort is successful, Russia’s sovereignty will be eroded exactly as has the sovereignty of every other country allied with the US.

At President Putin’s last press conference ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46100.htm ), journalist Marat Sagadatov asked if Russia wasn’t already subject to forms of foreign semi-domination: “Our economy, industry, ministries and agencies often follow the rules laid down by international organizations and are managed by consulting companies. Even our defense enterprises have foreign consulting firms auditing them.” The journalist asked, “if it is not time to do some import substitution in this area too?”

Every Russian needs to understand that being part of the West means living by Washington’s rules. The only country in the Western Alliance that has an independent foreign and economic policy is the US.

All of us need to understand that although Trump has been elected president, the neoconservatives remain dominant in US foreign policy, and their commitment to the hegemony of the US as the uni-power remains as strong as ever. The neoconservative ideology has been institutionalized in parts of the CIA, State Department and Pentagon. The neoconservatives retain their influence in media, think tanks, university faculties, foundations, and in the Council on Foreign Relations.

We also need to understand that Trump revels in the role of tough guy and will say things that can be misinterpreted as my friend, Finian Cunningham, whose columns I read, usually with appreciation, might have done ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46103.htm ).

I do not know that Trump will prevail over the vast neoconservative conspiracy. However, it seems clear enough that he is serious about reducing the tensions with Russia that have been building since President Clinton violated the George H. W. Bush administration’s promise that NATO would not expand one inch to the East. Unless Trump were serious, there is no reason for him to announce Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as his choice for Secretary of State. In 2013 Mr. Tillerson was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, a global corporation such as Exxon has interests different from those of the US military/security complex. The military/security complex needs a powerful threat, such as the former “Soviet threat” which has been transformed into the “Russian threat,” in order to justify its hold on an annual budget of approximately one trillion dollars. In contrast, Exxon wants to be part of the Russian energy business. Therefore, as Secretary of State, Tillerson is motivated to achieve good relations between the US and Russia, whereas for the military/security complex good relations undermine the orchestrated fear on which the military/security budget rests.

Clearly, the military/security complex and the neoconservatives see Trump and Tillerson as threats, which is why the neoconservatives and the armaments tycoons so strongly opposed Trump and why CIA Director John Brennan made wild and unsupported accusations of Russian interference in the US presidential election.

The lines are drawn. The next test will be whether Trump can obtain Senate confirmation of his choice of Tillerson as Secretary of State.

The myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again correcting the record.

Reagan never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan can verify it.

Reagan wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful” nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly did and has never got over it.)

Reagan had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it. Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists, who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War, as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex. The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.

Reagan did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the committee.

American capitalism and the social safety net would function much better without the drain on the budget of the military/security complex. It is more correct to say that the military/security complex wants a major threat, not an actual arms race. Stateless Muslim terrorists are not a sufficient threat for such a massive US military, and the trouble with an actual arms race as opposed to a threat is that the US armaments corporations would have to produce weapons that work instead of cost overruns that boost profits.

The latest US missile ship has twice broken down and had to be towed into port. The F-35 has cost endless money, has a variety of problems ( http://www.stopthef35.com/pentagon-f-35-wont-have-a-chance-in-real-combat/ ) and is already outclassed. The Russian missiles are hypersonic. The Russian tanks are superior. The explosive power of the Russian Satan II ICBM is terrifying. The morale of the Russian forces is high. They have not been exhausted from 15 years of fighting without much success pointless wars against women and children.

Washington, given the corrupt nature of the US military/security complex, can arms race all it wants without being a danger to Russia or China, much less to the strategic alliance between the two powers.

The neoconservatives are discredited, but they are still a powerful influence on US foreign policy. Until Trump relegates them to the ideological backwaters, Russia and China had best hold on to their strategic alliance. Anyone attempting to break this alliance is a threat to both Russia and China, and to America and to life on earth.

======================

Previous articles

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

Environmentalism: too many gravy trains and dangerous 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.

Is Climate Alarmism Governance at War with the USA?

Is Climate Alarmism Governance at War with the USA  By Leo Goldstein, from Watts Up With That website, 11 January 2017

My essay The Command & Control Center of Climate Alarmism discussed the centralized structure of climate alarmism, and introduced the term Climate Alarmism Governance (CAG) to define its command & control center. The fact that most alarmist groups and their multiple activities are centrally coordinated or even directed raises a natural question about their central motives and goals. The impression that these groups believe in the IPCC theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is contradicted by their widespread opposition to the use of nuclear power and to building new hydro power plants. Hydropower is obviously a renewable energy source.

The same groups oppose natural gas power, which emits 3-4 times less carbon dioxide per kWh compared with coal power. There are many more contradictions in the CAG’s statements and actions. It seems to be aware that its “scientific base” is fake, and purposefully makes illogical and impossible demands to thwart any serious consideration of technological or economic solutions for the alleged problem. Each time such economic or technological actions are seriously contemplated, somebody takes another look at the so-called “climate science” and finds a striking lack of actual science. Then it takes 5-8 years to explain the fraud away, and to raise alarm to new heights.

After considering and discarding other theories as insufficient to explain all the facts, only one conclusion remains: the Climate Alarmism Governance is waging a war on the United States.

The CAG leads a tight coalition of mostly foreign based NGOs, certain United Nations agencies and politicians, and a few individuals possessed by ideas of world domination (euphemistically described as “world governance” or “global civil society”) and aided by domestic collaborators. Here, this coalition will be called Climatist International, or Climintern, to underscore its analogy with the Communist International (Comintern) organization that existed from 1919 until 1956. Climintern also seems to be a partial successor to the Soviet-controlled espionage, influence, and propaganda network that collapsed in 1988-91, many of whose individual members and sympathizers fled to environmentalism. The climate alarmism network rose around the same time.

The word war is not used metaphorically here. It is not a Cold War, not a “trade war,” and not a war of ideas. And it is not a war in some remote location. The theater of this war comprises at least the entire US. It may look inconspicuous, but only because it is 4thGeneration Warfare, as defined by Colonel John Boyd (1927-1997). Col. Boyd’s theories are usually invoked in the context of asymmetrical conflicts in remote parts of the world, but are by no means limited to such conflicts.

  1. Colonel Boyd’s Theory & 4thGeneration Warfare

Colonel Boyd’s insight is that there are three levels of warfare: moral, mental, and physical:

  • Moral Warfare: the destruction of the enemy’s will to win, disruption of alliances (or potential allies) and induction of internal fragmentation. Ideally resulting in the “dissolution of the moral bonds that permit an organic whole to exist.” (i.e., breaking down the mutual trust and common outlook mentioned in the paragraph above.)
  • Mental Warfare: the distortion of the enemy’s perception of reality through disinformation, ambiguous posturing, and/or severing of the communication/information infrastructure.
  • Physical Warfare: the abilities of physical resources such as weapons, people, and logistical assets.

Thus, destroying things and killing people are not the essence of warfare, but only its lowest, physical level. This observation applies to wars in general and is not limited to 4thgeneration warfare. Colonel Boyd advises that a successful strategy should

“Penetrate [the] adversary’s moral-mental-physical being to dissolve his moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize or otherwise subdue those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends upon …” (Osinga, Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.)

A military strategy is subordinated to a Grand Strategy, which was conceptualized by Colonel Boyd for 4th generation warfare as

the art of connecting yourself to as many other independent power centers as possible, while at the same time isolating your enemies from as many other power centers as possible. A Fourth Generation conflict will usually have many independent power centers, not only at the grand strategic level but down all the way to the tactical level. The game of connection and isolation will therefore be central to tactics and operational art as well as to strategy and grand strategy.” (Lind, Thiele, 4th Generation Warfare Handbook)

  1. On the Edge of Defeat

The events of the last fifteen years, considered in the light of these ideas, suggest that the CAG and Climintern have been waging a textbook 4th generation war against America!

Unfortunately, their war went extremely successfully on the moral and mental levels. On the moral level, it polarized America to an extent not seen in the last 150 years. Climate alarmism confused many smart and influential persons, pushing them to the extreme left and convincing them that Republicans and conservatives are ignorant and evil. On the mental level, Climintern severely undermined the American scientific enterprise and other intellectual infrastructure, and damaged universities and other academic institutions, most of them beyond repair. Other factors contributed more heavily to the downfall of academia.

Considering Col. Boyd’s wisdom, we cannot avoid thinking that the CAG was exceptionally successful in its Grand Strategy as well. It has isolated America from other centers of power, including Western Europe and Latin America. It also isolated America from its own academia, the media-entertainment industry, and even the government (as of 1/1/2017). Even worse, it created internal political divisions showing some attributes of a religious conflict.

But a hostile activity can be properly called a war only when something is done on the physical level: when large-scale violence or damage to physical objects is employed, attempted, or threatened by the enemy. Well, CAG agents in the EPA and some other federal agencies have been damaging the national energy infrastructure by regulations, orders, and threats for many years. For example, the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion that killed eleven men happened when the crew performed an unnecessary procedure, demanded by the EPA. Federal sabotage of the attempts to stop the oil leakage and to clean it up is a separate subject. Fortunately, the fracking revolution and off-shore drilling, happening despite the active resistance of the Obama administration, have offset some of the worst effects of its energy policies. But severe damage to the energy infrastructure can take an enormous toll in human lives, especially when the enemy action caused “dissolution of the moral bonds”.

Industrial systems are usually designed with multiple layers of safety measures and procedures. Enforcing such multi-layer safety is one of the main reasons for regulations and regulators. If a hostile governance penetrates or acquires influence over a regulatory authority, it might remove some safety measures or order dangerous procedures under a suitable pretext, such as protection of the environment. The accidents would not start to happen immediately, because some safety measures would remain. Rather, disasters would happen in the future, and would be usually attributed to failures of the remaining safety measures. Climintern has publicly announced its goal to shut down fossil fuel production and utilization, and words like “penetration” and “influence” severely understate its control over the EPA.

Moreover, the CAG certainly encourages its units to act like they are fighting a war. Its warlike thinking is reflected in the warlike terminology used by its units. They perform mobilization; they demand wartime limits on freedoms; they blockade and disrupt; and they fight battles in an endless war against the enemy, which seems to be us (**).

III. The CAG and Climintern

The existence of the CAG as the center of climate alarmism needs some explanation. Of course, CAG leaders do not conduct their affairs from a secret office or bunker, but the Internet allows them to collaborate almost as if they were in the same office. The majority of individuals who occasionally support climate alarmism are not controlled, but they do believe media propaganda, follow their friends, or trust institutions that used to be trustworthy.

Nevertheless, most alarmist organizations are under the central control. Ordinary members and even some leaders of these organizations might not know that, but this situation is not unusual. For example, front groups of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) were created and operated in exactly the same way. A typical member of a front group did not know he was joining a CPUSA front. Even if the member found out, he did not know that the CPUSA was fully controlled by the Soviet regime, headed by Stalin and his henchmen. And US Communists and fellow travelers did not want to hear about mass murders and other crimes committed by the Soviet regime against its people. In accordance with the Marxist dogma, they considered such information forgery, funded by the bourgeoisie.

Climintern is hundreds of times bigger than Comintern or the CPUSA ever were. Climintern controls annual budgets of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars – compared with the tens of millions that were at the disposal of the CPUSA. Climintern also has a more complex structure, with many command levels and multiple communication channels. Further, some groups within Climintern serve as communication channels in addition to their operational functions, such as propaganda or mobilization. The Guardian’s article Climate change: we must look to international agencies to save the world is an example of such dual functionality. It both weakens resistance to the CAG among ordinary readers and signals to low-level front groups that the party line openly pushes national submission to the international agencies.

To be effective, a Climintern group does not need to know that it is a part of a centrally controlled structure. It only needs to know who gives its instructions, or through what channels it receives those instructions. The Climintern groups and their employees and agents must obey the instructions, or risk loss of their jobs and/or funding. I need not repeat here the well-known cases, such as the expulsion of whole chapters from Sierra Club. The CAG also controls large parts of the federal government (as of 1/1/2017), state governments, many European governments, most research funding, and enormous amounts of public money. The Internet allows continuous and efficient communication and coordination between the CAG and its forces worldwide. Just thirty years ago, global or even regional scale plots were almost impossible because of the lack of efficient communication and coordination. Today, that distance is not an obstacle.

Of course, the CAG itself is not as cohesive as the Soviet regime under Stalin. But the leaders of big transnational NGOs, UN officials, European Green parties, and hell-knows-who-else maintain a unified command, probably aided by huge amounts of money coming their way. And they are adept at issuing instructions in the form of “commander’s intent,” allowing leaders of subordinated outfits broad discretion on how to execute the instructions to achieve their intended goals.

The legacy of two of America’s most powerful defeated enemies – Communism and Nazism – are evident in the CAG. Nazism became a powerful influence in the UN organization in the 1970’s, as evident from the appointment of Kurt Waldheim, an unindicted Nazi war criminal, as the UN Secretary-General from 1972 to 1981. Apparently, this ideology made its way into the UN through certain third-world governments, sometimes in the disguise of anti-colonialism. America had almost no colonies, exerted pressure on European countries to let go of their colonies, and provided aid to many newly independent countries, but still became an object of hatred. Hatred has a logic of its own. America was also perceived by the aspiring “global governors” (including characters as diverse as Maurice Strong and George Soros) as the main obstacle to their tyrannical ambitions, and for good reasons. Finally, the anti-humanist ideology of the “deep ecology” recently moved from the fringes into the mainstream of climate alarmism. Evil attracts evil.

Climintern’s factions have different ultimate goals. The only thing that unites them is their hostility to this nation. Their shared immediate goal is to weaken America and either to subject it to foreign rule or to tear it down entirely. Powerful domestic groups, such as Sierra Club(*), EDF(*), NRDC(*), UCS(*), Center for American Progress (CAP) and, as horrible as it sounds, the Democratic National Committee seem to be affiliated with Climintern.

Transnational environmentalism has been corrupting science through the EPA since the early 1980’s. When Al Gore was Vice President in 1993-2001, the environmentalists started dismantling the American scientific enterprise. George W. Bush did nothing to stop this process. America has been constantly targeted by the Climate Action Network, and the whole UNFCCC process was consciously steered in that direction. For example, this is how the methodology of accounting for emitted gases was established (from a CAN booklet):

Sinks issues began to come up well before Kyoto. … It was the NGO position that we didn’t want land use or gases other than carbon dioxide going into Kyoto because we didn’t think you could estimate them really well. (COP 6, Bonn 2001)

—John Lanchbery

The explanation is not truthful. The relative impact of the land use and gases other than carbon dioxide could be estimated, and certainly better than the impact of carbon dioxide had been estimated. The real reason for this emphasis was that US emissions of infrared-active gases other than carbon dioxide and the net emissions of carbon dioxide (emissions less sinks) are very small, both absolutely and per capita. So the CAG decided to use another accounting methodology, which would show a big US “footprint.” In other words, it designated America as the enemy, and “parameterized” science and economics through the UNFCCC/IPCC to justify this hostility. The booklet also repeatedly mentions CAN’s strategy to isolate the US from its allies and gloats about its successes, like this:

CAN of course played a critical role in working with the EU, South Africa, and other developing countries to craft a strategy on the floor to isolate the US and get them to reverse their position on opposing the Bali Action Plan. John Coequyt was then at Greenpeace USA, and had a friendship with Dave Banks, who was a deputy at the Bush White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. (COP 13, Bali 2007)

—Alden Meyer, UCS

The essay Who unleashed Climatism? has more examples from the early period of climate alarmism. Today these attitudes are obvious. The CAG assault started escalating in 2005 (when CAP founded the International Climate Change Taskforce, together with its British and Australian counterparts), skyrocketed in 2006 (with the release of Al Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth with outsized participation of Laurie David of the NRDC), and went through the roof in 2007-2008, when innovations in the fracking technology made huge American shale oil reserves economically accessible (in the article Excluding oil, the US trade deficit has never been worse, see the chart Bakken shale: well production & number of wells; notice 10x increase in the oil output per well.) The WWF(*) and OPEC, constantly monitoring oil and gas resources worldwide, should have known about this oil production breakthrough immediately, but most of the American public remained unaware until this election campaign.

2009 brought Climategate 2.0 and the scandalous Copenhagen Conference of Parties (COP15). This prompted even left-leaning scientists to take a closer look at the “UN Physik” and to abandon or even publicly denounce it. COP15 saw an influx of even more radical groups acting under the umbrella names “Climate Justice Action” and “Climate Justice Now!” Even if those groups acted without authorization from the CAG when they were disrupting public order in Copenhagen, the CAG probably accommodated their demands and attitudes later, as shown by the absence of similar disruptions at later COPs.

Thus, in 2010-2011 the CAG became desperate to shut down US shale oil production before its success became widely known, was annoyed by the loss of its scientific entourage, and piqued by its “climate justice” trailer. Probably at some point in this timeframe it crossed the threshold between hostile activity and an undeclared war.

  1. Status of our Allies

This article is not an appeal to nationalism, but the US situation is sharply different from that of Britain, Canada, Australia, and other Western countries. Most of them have surrendered to climate alarmism, at the cost of their freedoms and big economic damage, and were forced to furnish support to CAG. Western Europe seems to be occupied by CAG, but treated relatively well. America faces a total war almost alone. Energy industry is the most visible target, but education, science, political institutions, and even the social fabric itself are under attack by the CAG and Climintern. Commentators say that climate alarmism is used as a wrecking ball against America.

The habit of European politicians to scapegoat America for their own problems has certainly contributed to the overall mess. On the other hand, it is hard to overestimate the unique role played by Al Gore in climate alarmism since 1988. When I stress that climate alarmism is a foreign enemy, aided by domestic collaborators, I mean foreign to America. Nevertheless, readers from other countries would be justified in seeing climatism as a foreign threat to them. This is because the CAG operates in a virtual extraterritorial space – UN agencies with diplomatic immunities, small countries that are either too weak to stand up to the pack of environmental NGOs (like Netherlands), or countries like Switzerland that customarily provide neutral ground for international activities. Also, the CAG is territorially dispersed most of the time, although it can gather forces in almost any place on the globe.

This observation leads to a philosophical detour. The forces of chaos and totalitarianism (commonly known as the Left) can collaborate across state boundaries much easier than the “good guys.” We respect the national sovereignty of each country, just as we respect individual rights and state rights. This respect is an inherent obstacle faced by the “good guys” in the transboundary political cooperation. But chaos is chaos everywhere; it knows no national borders. The adherents of the global governance and compatible totalitarian systems violate national sovereignties on purpose. They easily collaborate on the global scale. The modern mass media allows Climintern and similar powers to instantly mobilize supporters and innocent bystanders across the globe and throw them against any country, political party, or even individuals standing in their path. Their unprecedented interference against Donald Trump and the Republican candidates to Congress in the 2016 elections is a recent example.

  1. Conclusions

I want to contribute to greater understanding of the climate alarmism threat. I do not suggest bombing, shooting, or taking any kind of military action. But the enemy is real, determined, and sophisticated, and some of its accomplices have very little to lose. Scientific errors and the desire to help poor countries played a role in attracting good people to this bad cause, nothing more. The enemy is motivated by its lust for power, greed, and hatred. The election results provide us a fighting chance, but do not ensure a victory.

 

(*) The author is a plaintiff in a civil RICO lawsuit against this organization.

(**) A set of Google searches on the main Greenpeace website, limited to a military term in conjunction with the words climate or warming (example: war site:greenpeace.org climate OR warming) garnered these results on 1/1/2017:

Revolution: 13,100 results

Fight: 6,450

Strategy: 4,470

Blockade: 4,200

War: 3,700

Battle: 2,640

Combat: 1,510

Mobilization: 1,310

Action: 34,500 (the most generic one)

“Denial” is a separate subject:

Denial: 4,580

Deniers: 2,910

Denier: 2,220

========================

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

========================

Links to previous articles

 

Posted in Environmental battles | 1 Comment

What ‘New World Order’?

What are the plans for a ‘New World Order’ (NWO)?  Main stream media invariably describe and it’s strategies such as globalisation 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.

The perils of globalisation

The perils of globalisation  By Greg Ip, The Wall Street Journal, 8 January 2017

Late on a Sunday evening a little more than a year ago, Marine Le Pen took the stage in a depressed working-class town in northern France. She had just lost an election for the region’s top office, but the leader of France’s anti-immigrant, anti-euro National Front did not deliver a concession speech.

Instead, Le Pen proclaimed a new ideological struggle.

“Now, the dividing line is not between Left and Right but globalists and patriots,” she declared, with a gigantic French flag draped behind her.

Globalists, she charged, want France to be subsumed in a vast, world-encircling “magma”. She and other patriots, by contrast, were determined to retain the nation-state as the “protective space” for French citizens.

Le Pen’s remarks foreshadowed the tectonic forces that would shake the world in 2016. The British vote to leave the European Union in June and the election of Donald Trump as US president in November were not about whether government should be smaller but whether the nation-state still mattered. Le Pen now has a shot at winning France’s presidential elections this spring, which could imperil the already reeling EU and its common currency.

Supporters of these disparate movements are protesting not just globalisation — the process whereby goods, capital and people move ever more freely across borders — but globalism, the mindset that globalisation is natural and good, that global governance should expand as national sovereignty contracts.

The new nationalist surge has startled establishment parties in part because they don’t see globalism as an ideology. How could it be, when it is shared across the traditional Left-Right spectrum by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, George W. Bush and David Cameron?

But globalism is an ideology, and its struggle with nationalism will shape the coming era much as the struggle between conservatives and liberals has shaped the last. That, at least, is how the new nationalists see it.

In the US, after successfully pressuring Carrier Corp to keep in Indiana about half of the 2100 jobs that the firm had planned to move to Mexico, Trump told a rally last month, “There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship. From now on, it’s going to be ‘America First’.”

In the 1930s, nationalists were also expansionists who coveted other countries’ territory. Today, Trump and his ideological allies mostly want to reassert control over their own countries. Their targets are such global structures as the EU, the World Trade Organisation, NATO, the UN and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Little unites the new nationalists other than their shared antipathy toward globalism. Trump’s economic program is as far to the right as Le Pen’s is to the left. Nor do they have credible plans for replacing the institutions of globalisation that they want to tear down, as Britain’s confused exit from the EU demonstrates.

But globalists would be wise to face their own shortcomings. They have underestimated the collateral damage that breakneck globalisation has inflicted on ordinary workers, placed too much weight on the strategic advantages of trade and dismissed too readily the value that many ordinary citizens still attach to national borders and cultural cohesion.

Globalism’s early roots are found in basic economics: Just as two people are better off specialising and then trading with each other, so are two cities and two countries. “All trade, whether foreign or domestic, is beneficial,” the British economist David Ricardo wrote in 1817.

Britain presided over the first great age of globalisation, from the mid-1800s to 1914. Its leaders were not self-consciously globalist. They adopted free trade and the gold standard purely for domestic benefit.

After World War II, the logic of globalism shifted beyond trade to grand strategy. By ceding modest amounts of sovereignty to international institutions, a country could make the world, and itself, far stronger than by pursuing its own narrowly defined interests. “If the nations can agree to observe a code of good conduct in international trade, they will co-operate more readily in other international affairs,” US president Harry Truman said in 1947.

Truman and the other founders of the post-war order saw economic and geopolitical self-interest as inseparable: the US opened its wallet and its markets to its allies to hold back Soviet communism. In 1957, six European countries signed the Treaty of Rome, creating what would become the EU, hoping that economic and political integration would make war unthinkable.

For decades, trade, industrialisation and demographics produced a virtuous circle of rising prosperity. By the 1990s, trade barriers had already dropped so much that the gains from trade were now smaller and more concentrated. Between 1987 and 2008, total U.S. wages adjusted for inflation rose by 53 per cent, while the profits that U.S. companies earned abroad soared by 347 per cent. Still, the strategic benefits of trade remained alluring: president Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1993 in part to embed a pro-American government in Mexico, and the EU moved after the Cold War to admit former Soviet satellites to solidify their democracies and draw them out of Russia’s orbit.

By the 2000s, globalism was triumphant. The World Economic Forum had evolved from a cozy management-oriented workshop in the Swiss town of Davos to an extravagant summit for elites. The late political scientist Samuel Huntington applied the caustic label “Davos man” to those who see “national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing”. For globalists, this was a badge of honour, symbolising not just an outlook but a lifestyle of first-class departure lounges, smartphones and stock options.

This is also when globalists overreached. In 2000, Clinton blessed China’s entry into the WTO. Echoing Truman, he predicted China’s membership was “likely to have a profound impact on human rights and political liberty”.

It didn’t. China adhered to the letter of its WTO obligations while systematically violating their spirit with discrimination against foreign investors and products and an artificially cheap currency. A wave of Chinese imports wiped out 2 million American jobs, according to one widely cited 2016 study, with no equivalent boom in US jobs linked to exports to China. Meanwhile, China became more repressive at home and antagonistic abroad. By behaving quite differently from other members of the global trading club, China has undermined support for it.

Globalists in Europe also overreached. In 1999, 11 EU members joined the euro, the crowning achievement of European unity. Economists warned that Italy, Spain and Greece couldn’t compete with Germany without the safety valve of letting national currencies periodically devalue to offset their faster-rising costs.

Sure enough, their trade deficits ballooned, but low-cost euro loans at first made them easy to finance. The loans proved unsustainable, and the resulting crisis has still not run its course. One result: In Italy, the populist 5 Star Movement, which is jostling for first place in the polls, has promised a nonbinding referendum on membership in the euro.

Chinese and German trade surpluses could wreak havoc thanks to expanding cross-border finance. To globalists, its growth was as inexorable as that of trade. In early 2008, President George W. Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, put out a report arguing that globalisation had made much of US financial regulation obsolete. The priority was to maintain “American pre-eminence in the global capital markets”. Those same capital markets soon tipped the world into its worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

That crisis has woken up globalists to the flaws of globalisation. Yet their faith in open borders remains unshaken. President Barack Obama entered office as a free-trade sceptic, but he soon threw his energy into negotiating the 12-nation trans-Pacific Partnership. The pact’s anticipated economic benefits for the US were modest, but its strategic aims were sweeping: the US would forge a pro-America, pro-trade order in Asia rather than let a rising China dominate the region. With Trump’s win, the accord is now presumed to be dead.

Globalists were blind to the nationalist backlash in part because their world — entrepreneurial, university-educated, ethnically diverse, urban and coastal — has thrived as whiter, less-educated hinterlands have stagnated. Similar splits separate London from the rest of England and the EU’s capital cities from the countryside of continental Europe.

Many globalists now assume that the discontent is largely driven by stagnant wages and inequality. If people are upset about immigration, they reason, it is largely because they fear competition with low-wage workers.

In fact, much of the backlash against immigration (and globalism) is not economic but cultural: many people still care about their own versions of national identity and mistrust global institutions such as the EU.

A 2016 study by Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan and Pippa Norris of Harvard University analysed party manifestos in 13 Western democracies and found that in the 1980s, economic issues such as taxes and welfare became less important than noneconomic issues such as immigration, terrorism, abortion and gay rights.

In July 2016, two scholars at the London School of Economics found that rising unemployment didn’t make British regions more likely to vote to leave the EU, but a growing migrant population did. These voters were bothered less by competition from immigrants than by their perceived effect on the country’s linguistic, religious and cultural norms.

One of the first to exploit such cultural resentments was Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of the National Front, who frequently decried mondialisme in xenophobic terms. After his daughter Marine took over the party in 2011, she threw him out because his anti-Semitic outbursts were repelling mainstream French voters.

In 2014, Steve Bannon — Trump’s top strategist and the former leader of Breitbart News, a fiery conservative site that is fiercely opposed to immigration and multiculturalism — acknowledged that Le Pen’s National Front and its British counterpart, the UK Independence Party, “bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially”. Nonetheless, Bannon saw them as fellow travellers. He said, “The working men and women in the world … are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos.”

Indeed, one 2012 study found that Europeans’ opposition to immigration was driven less by pocketbook concerns than by worries about how changes to “the composition of the local population” would affect “their neighbourhoods, schools and workplaces”. The last big US backlash against immigration came during the Roaring Twenties, the last time that the foreign-born share of the population stood as high as it is today, at 13 per cent.

Which raises the most troubling question of the emerging globalist-nationalist divide: is the new nationalism a cloak for ethnic and religious exclusion? Nationalist leaders insist that it isn’t. Le Pen, for example, says that she is merely defending France’s secular character when she criticises overt displays of Islamic observance, distancing herself from her plainly xenophobic father. Trump says that struggling Latino and African-American workers are victims of cheap foreign labour just as much as Rust Belt whites.

Yet the new nationalism often thrives on xenophobia. Trump has been criticising free trade since the 1980s, but his candidacy took off when he started attacking Mexican immigrants and Muslims. American Jewish groups heard unsettling echoes of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories when Trump accused Hillary Clinton of meeting “in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty”. Germany’s Alternative for Germany started as an anti-euro party, but as an influx of Middle Eastern refugees and migrants has stoked worries about crime and terrorism, the party’s focus on Islam (which its manifesto declared “not a part of Germany”) and its popular support have both jumped.

In short, there is ample reason for scepticism about whether the new nationalists can prove themselves a genuinely secular, democratic alternative to globalism.

If globalists are to regain the public’s trust, they will need to re-examine their own policies. The dislocation caused by past globalisation casts doubt on the wisdom of prescribing more.

That globalisation’s winners can compensate its losers makes impeccable economic logic, but it rings hollow among those too old to retrain or move. Political capital might be better invested in preserving existing trade pacts, not passing new ones. And trade pacts may be a less effective bulwark against China than military co-operation with those worried about Chinese aggression.

Many European globalists blame the euro’s crisis on too little integration, not too much. But pressing for a more federal Europe could further alienate voters who “do not share our Euro-enthusiasm”, warned Donald Tusk, the former prime minister of Poland who is now president of the European Council, last May. “Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality.”

Above all, globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia. Large majorities of Americans, for example, welcome immigrants so long as they adopt American values, learn English, bring useful skills and wait their turn. Australia’s low tolerance for illegal immigration helps to maintain public support for high levels of legal entrants.

“We’ve created this false dichotomy that if you’re not for open borders, you’re racist,” says Avik Roy, president of the conservative Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a former adviser to Republican Party presidential candidates. “There is some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach,” Roy argues.

Even as committed a globalist as Obama has come to acknowledge this. Democrats, he told Rolling Stone the day after the election, must recognise that “for the majority of the American people, borders mean something”.

The Wall Street Journal

=====================

How we can escape from the insidious control

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

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 atwww.themillenniumreport.com 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

================================

Previous articles concerning a ‘New World Order’

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

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 ou

The EU Vs. The Nation State

The EU Vs. The Nation State  By George Igler, The Gatestone Institute, 30 December 2016

  • The question remains, however, why any nation would want to throw out its sovereignty to institutions that are fundamentally unaccountable, that provide no mechanism for reversing direction, and whose only “solution” to problems involves arrogating to itself ever more authoritarian, rather than democratically legitimate, power.
  • Previous worries over unemployment and the economy have been side-lined: the issues now vexing European voters the most, according to the EU’s own figures, are mass immigration (45%) and terrorism (32%).
  • The Netherlands’ Partij Voor de Vrijheid, France’s Front Nationaland Germany’s Alternativ für Deutschland are each pushing for a referendum on EU membership in their respective nations.
  • Given that the EU’s institutions have been so instrumental as a causal factor in the mass migration and terrorism that are now dominating the minds of national electorates, some might argue that the sooner Europeans get rid of the EU, which is now doing more harm than good, the better.

Attention is beginning to focus on elections due to take place in three separate European countries in 2017. The outcomes in the Netherlands, France and Germany will determine the likely future of the European Union (EU).

In the Netherlands, on March 15, all 150 members of the country’s House of Representatives will face the ballot box. The nation is currently led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, whose VVD party holds 40 seats in the legislative chamber, ruling in a coalition with the Dutch Labour party, which holds 35 seats.

In contrast, the Party for Freedom – Partij Voor de Vrijheid (PVV) – led by Geert Wilders, currently holds 12 seats.

According to an opinion poll, issued on December 21, Wilders’s party has leapt to 24% in the polls, while Rutte’s party has slid to 15%. Were an election to happen now, this would translate to 23 MPs for Rutte’s VVD, and 36 MPs for Wilders’s PVV.

Given the strict formula of proportional representation in the Netherlands, however, coalition governments are the norm. Should Wilders’s PVV come first in March, he will likely need to negotiate with one of his staunchest critics to form a government.

In France, two rounds of voting in the presidential elections are set to take place on April 23 and May 7 – with the two leading candidates from the first round facing each other in a runoff in the second round.

The most likely candidates to make it through to the second round, François Fillon, of the centre-right Les Républicains, and Marine Le Pen, of the populist Front National, remain tied in first-round polling.

A survey, published on December 7, gave each candidate 24%. Le Pen’s party, however, has previously fallen afoul of France’s dual-round voting system, in which voters for other parties have used the second round to swing behind the more moderate candidate.

A separate BVA poll, which solely simulated a run off between Fillon and Le Pen, showed the former the potential victor by 67%.

For all the discussion of a populist revolt in European politics, the parties agitating for change against the continent’s open borders, and its centralized, unaccountable and un-transparent law-making – originating from the institutions of the EU – continue to face an uphill climb.

In Germany, despite the calamities associated with the decision of its Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to accept 1.5 million Muslim migrants into her nation in 2015, she is seeking re-election.

On a date yet to be determined, between August 27 and October 22, German federal elections will take place to decide the members of the Bundestag, the country’s federal parliament.

Despite having been founded only in April 2013, the populist Alternative for Germany party – Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) – has recently risen to an unprecedented 16% in the polls, in the wake of the attack on Berlin Christmas shoppers on December 19. Terrorism is proving a driver of voters’ intentions.

The increasing levels of support being enjoyed by Europe’s populist Eurosceptic parties are clearly associated with issues which are coming to dominate popular concern. Previous worries over unemployment and the economy have been side-lined: the issues now vexing European voters the most, according to the EU’s own figures (pp.4-5), are mass immigration (45%) and terrorism (32%).

Breaking these Eurobarometer numbers down further, country by country (p.7), Dutch voters picked immigration as their greatest concern by a startling 56%, with terrorism following at 33%.

French voters, despite being subjected to more recent terrorist atrocities than any other European nation, picked immigration and terrorism by a margin of 36% and 35%, respectively, according to the latest EU report. The parlous state of the French economy continues to be a major concern to French voters.

The elections scheduled next year in the Netherlands, France, and Germany, are doubly significant in that they make up three of the six original signatory nations of the founding treaty which eventually gave rise to the EU.

The Netherlands’ Partij Voor de Vrijheid, France’s Front National and Germany’s Alternativ für Deutschland are each pushing for a referendum on EU membership in their respective nations.

Signed in March 1957, by Italy, France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Treaty of Rome established both the European Economic Community – proposing a single market for goods, labour, services and capital within the bloc – and also, crucially, brought the European Commission into existence.

The executive body of the EU, which also has the sole remit for initiating legislation at the European level, is led by the controversial Jean-Claude Juncker, whose own grim opinion of the nation state’s role in the likely future of the European continent was made clear in a speech on December 9.

On the 25th anniversary of the drafting of the Maastricht Treaty, which paved the way for the Euro – the single currency shared by 19 countries within the 28 member EU – Mr. Juncker delivered a stark message:

Europe is the smallest continent. … We are a relevant part of the global economy: 25% of the global GPD. In 10 years from now, it will be 15%. In 20 years from now, not one single Member State of the European Union will be a member of the G7. … And from a demographic point of view, we are not really disappearing, but we are losing demographic weight.

 

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Europeans represented 20% of the human kind. Now, at the beginning of this century: 7%. At the end of this century: 4% out of 10 billion people. So those who do think that time has come to deconstruct, to put Europe in pieces, to subdivide us in national divisions, are totally wrong. We will not exist as single nations without the European Union.

In short, according to Juncker, the European nation state simply no longer has a future. Many, including voters this year in Britain and Italy, and potential supporters of the PVV, the AfD and the Front National, would emphatically disagree.

Critics of the EU, whose philosophical foundations were laid between the two World Wars, have often claimed that its purpose was to tie together the economic fortunes of each member state so that exiting the bloc would become practicably impossible.

As one of the founding fathers of the EU, the French diplomat Jean Monnet, argued in 1943:

“There will be no peace in Europe if states are reconstituted on a basis of national sovereignty … Prosperity and vital social progress will remain elusive until the nations of Europe form a federation or a ‘European entity’ which will forge them into a single economic unit.”

This “fusion of (economic functions),” Monnet explained in 1952, “would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.”

Despite the historic vote by the United Kingdom to exit the EU on June 23, the procedural mechanism for Britain’s departure has yet to be implemented, and has been the subject of extended legal and parliamentary debate.

Those who had hoped that Britain would have already demonstrated a clear economic future for a nation outside the EU bloc, to embolden populist parties in other European countries seeking independence, before next year’s pivotal elections, have had their wishes caught up, temporarily at least, in the cogs of procedure.

The question remains, however, why any nation would want to throw out its sovereignty to institutions that are fundamentally unaccountable, that provide no mechanism for reversing direction, and whose only “solution” to problems involves arrogating to itself ever more authoritarian, rather than democratically legitimate, power.

However, the EU claims that support for the euro within the currency bloc is at an all-time high (70%), and a majority in countries like Hungary, Romania and Croatia would, in fact, like to join the EU’s currency union.

Given that concerns about mass migration, and the increase in crime and terrorism that have accompanied it, are only likely to grow, and that cross-national security cooperation is necessarily undermined by the EU’s open internal borders – Anis Amri, the Berlin truck assassin, was shot dead in Milan – Europe’s populist parties nevertheless face a sizeable challenge.

Despite voters’ concerns about mass migration, in the absence of presenting their electorates with a compelling economic vision outside of the EU, polling numbers still favour the political mainstream.

Given that the EU’s institutions have been so instrumental as a causal factor in the mass migration and terrorism that are now dominating the minds of national electorates, some might argue that the sooner Europeans get rid of the EU, which is now doing more harm than good, the better.

===================

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.

====================

Previous articles

Posted in The Rise and Fall of the EU | Comments Off on The Rise and Fall of the EU

Financial Poker at an international level

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.

The ‘Axis of Gold’ is launching an attack on the U.S. dollar

The ‘Axis of Gold’ is launching an attack on the U.S. dollar  By Jim Rickards,  29 December 2016

Now is the time to keep your eyes on the monetary endgame. Not the daily mark-to-market in paper gold.

This endgame is an all-out attack on the status of the U.S. dollar as the benchmark global reserve currency. Numerous players have an interest in ending the dollar’s role for reasons ranging from  climate change (invented global problems require global money solutions), to geopolitics (Russia and China both have regional hegemonic ambitions in Eastern Europe and East Asia respectively). As investors with longer horizons and patience, we see ways to profit from these global macro trends.

We’ve done the deep-dive you need to see the big picture. All indicators show this is an excellent time to accumulate a position in gold, if you haven’t put 10% of your investable assets in gold and physical metal already (which is what I recommend).

Whenever a new president is elected, think tanks in Washington get to work writing transition papers for the new administration. These are compilations of policy advice from subject matter experts for the benefit of the president-elect’s transition team.

I was invited to contribute to a transition paper on national economic security. This is the policy area with geopolitics and global capital markets converge. I was invited by a non-partisan institute called Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance, part of the prestigious Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. It was founded by Jack Kemp and Jeane Kirkpatrick and other patriotic Americans concerned about the rise of authoritarianism, and the decline of freedom and liberty.

The final national economic security paper has not yet been published as of this writing, but here’s an advance preview of a section I wrote on what I called the Axis of Gold:

A major blind spot in U.S. strategic economic doctrine is the increasing use of physical gold by China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and others both to avoid the impact of U.S. sanctions and create an offensive counterweight to U.S. dominance of dollar payment systems.

Currently U.S. dollar-denominated instruments and transactions constitute about 60% of global reserves, and 80% of global payments respectively. The U.S. monopoly of power over dollar payment channels gives the U.S. unrivalled dominance over the international monetary system and the economic well-being of every nation on earth. Adversaries naturally chafe at this immense power especially in light of U.S. imposed sanctions that are considered overbearing and unjustified by the targets. Those adversaries do not issue currencies that are potential alternatives to the dollar because of inadequate rule-of-law, immature bond markets, primitive capital markets infrastructure, or all three. The only feasible alternatives to dollar dominance are special drawing rights (SDRs) issued by the IMF, and gold.

To prepare for a physical gold alternative to the U.S. dollar, Russia increased its gold reserves 280% from the first quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2016 (from 386.5 metric tonnes to 1,498.7 metric tonnes), while China increased its gold reserves 203% in the same period (from 600 metric tonnes to 1,823.3 metric tonnes). China has been consistently non-transparent about its activities in the gold market.

Based on China’s mining output and reliable data on gold exports from Hong Kong and Switzerland to China, there is good reason to conclude that China’s actual gold holdings are nearer 4,000 metric tonnes, (a 567% increase since 2006). The comparable increase for Turkey is 308%. Reliable data is not available for Iran, however, exports from Turkey and Dubai to Iran are significant, and there is good reason to conclude that Iran is also a rising gold power relative to the size of its economy. Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran constitute a new “Axis of Gold” prepared to undermine confidence in the U.S. dollar.

Gold offers adversaries significant benefits in a world of U.S. imposed dollar-based sanctions. Gold is physical, not digital, so it cannot be hacked or frozen. Gold is easy to transport by air to settle balance of payments or other transactions between nations. Gold flows cannot be interdicted at SWIFT or FedWire. Gold is fungible and non-traceable (it is an element, atomic number 79), so its provenance cannot be ascertained. The U.S. is unprepared for this coming strategic alternative to dollar dominance.

No sooner had I submitted this analysis than President Erdo?an of Turkey made the following remarks in response to a currency crisis in his country: “Those who keep dollar or euro currency under their mattresses should come and turn them into liras or gold.” Turkey is not only accumulating large gold reserves, it is also a major trans-shipment point for gold flowing illegally to Iran.

Evidence for the rise of this Axis of Gold is overwhelming. Right now, gold mining output is flat, western central bank sales of gold have ceased, and acquisition of gold by the Axis is increasing. In India, a mad scramble for physical gold has begun because the government has declared most forms of cash to be illegal. The Indian government may not like gold (they have been seizing it from private hands), but the Indian people are wiser than their government. Indians are buying as much gold as they can through legal and illegal channels.

With limited output, limited western sales, and huge eastern purchases, it’s only a matter of time before a link in the physical gold delivery chain snaps and a full-scale buying panic erupts. Then the price of gold will soar regardless of paper gold manipulations. However, it may be too late for investors to benefit because the ready supply of physical gold will be gone. The time to take a position is now.

When will this buying panic erupt? What signs can we look to for guidance?

The most important input is the gradual dumping of U.S. Treasury debt by foreign creditors of the U.S. These market participants are highly sophisticated. They know they cannot dump all of their U.S. debt at one time without causing a panic and hurting their own positions.

If dumping were viewed as malicious or hostile, the president could freeze the accounts of market participants using his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Based on this, one would expect sales of Treasuries to be gradual and to play out over time. That’s exactly what we’ve been seeing since 2013.

 

This change is revealing not only because of the gradual reduction of U.S. Treasury holdings by foreigners, but also because of the extremely high level of such holdings. Some countries such as Japan are highly indebted, but the debt is held primarily by their own citizens who have no interest in attacking their own government.

That’s not true for the U.S. We are extremely vulnerable to foreign attack because of the high percentage of foreign ownership — almost 40% of the market.

The second major indicator is the run-off in China’s reserve position. China’s reserves have collapsed from over $4 trillion to about $3 trillion in the past 30 months. This decline shows no signs of stopping; in fact it has accelerated lately to the point that China is now imposing capital controls.

What is revealing about this is that while total reserves have been collapsing, gold reserves have been going up. China has been buying thousands of tons of gold even as they sell U.S. Treasury bonds to pay offshore creditors and prop-up their currency.

Indicators all point in the same direction – Treasuries are being dumped and gold is being acquired by the largest investors in the world. This is being done not as a “day trade” but as a strategic geopolitical move.

This means these trends will continue until the aims of the Axis of Gold have been achieved. Those aims include the overthrow of the U.S. dollar as the benchmark global reserve currency. When that happens, collapsing confidence in the dollar will send the dollar price of gold skyrocketing.

But you do not have to wait until the final collapse of confidence in the dollar to benefit. Momentum will accelerate long before the endgame, giving early investors ample opportunity to profit from the trend.

=================================

Scroll to end to view previous articles

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.

Regards,

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.

Cheers,

Vern Gowdie, for The Daily Reckoning

====================

Previous Financial Poker at an international  level articles

Posted in World finance: when will the bubble burst? | Comments Off on Financial Poker at an international level

‘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

david-ickes-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 – https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=1984 – 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 Amazon.com. 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%.

OTHER INDICATORS

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

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 http://humansarefree.com/2014/04/mankinds-forbidden-history-holds-answer.html

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,http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/annunaki.html
5. Roug, Louise, Digitizing Cuneiform, LA Times,
6. Chew, Feeland. Zecharia Sitchin and a New Synthesis.
7. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm
8. http://yowusa.com/planetx/2007/planetx-2007-08b/1.shtml

=========================

Lockheed Executive talks about Black Budgets and the Secret Space Travel Program

lockheed-executive-about-black-budgets-and-the-secret-space-travel-program from humansarefree.com 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: https://youtu.be/u9ZZekWMiUQ

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 – https://youtu.be/buNCOlB-HeM

===========================

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.

Introduction

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’.

Caveat

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 http://americanfreedomradio.com/listen_live.html

Interview with Dr Carol Rosin: Von Braun’s legacy – 34 min 2013 YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?=gP8ftWzFYI4&list=PLnrEt2fIdZ0aBgPuVF0C_T559Y

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wleifp3Fbe0

Thomas article:  Clean Electrical Energy from the Active Vacuum 2002   http://www.cheniere.org/articles/clean%20electrical.htm

A 6-minutes video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKFEmMotPNo, and a longer 50 min video that explains the article including many associated factors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJY8XqFnAyg&ebc=ANyPxKoiO2_L3WFfQZyyXFBfL8GqxZ_cFZPrZTreDPlVY5OmjBo2cSRCdlSWUGDYCAqgVu8dBTQJ5uNoF6tJPFEI-PTeWJ4Vow

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsJybtR9YlM 47 minutes) – his website: http://www.cheniere.org/ – 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. http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

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.  http://www.nuenergy.org/nikola-tesla-radiant-energy-system/

Dr Steven Greer

 Steven Greer, re new/free energy/ET etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL7uFTKUK_U

The potential for ‘free energy’ is discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy – 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 – http://better-management.org/?p=2526.  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

 About the author: Peter Senior CV March 2016 – email: petersenior42@gmail.com

The report Table of Contents, then the Summary, are below:

KiS Report – Table of Contents

1Summary

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?

Appendices
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