I have made this comment many times in the past, but I think it needs to be stated again here: If you think the Federal Reserve’s goal is to maintain or repair the U.S. economy, then you will never understand why they do the things they do or why the economy evolves the way that it does. The Fed’s job is not to protect the U.S. economy. The Fed’s job is to DESTROY the U.S. economy to make way for a truly global system.
There seems to be a collective delusion within certain parts of the liberty movement that the “globalists” (the banking and political elites that promote total global centralization of finance and power) are a purely American or Western problem, and that they have some kind of loyalty to the success, or perceived success, of the U.S. “empire.” This is nonsensical when you look at the progression of the American fiscal system after the Fed was established over a century ago.
In the past 100 years, the U.S. has suffered a gradual but immense devaluation in the dollar’s real buying power. We witnessed the first long-term fiscal depression in the nation’s history. We saw the removal of the gold standard. We saw the dismantling of the greatest industrial base in the history of the world. We have struggled through the implosion of the derivatives and credit bubble, which Fed officials have openly admitted responsibility for. And now, we are on the verge of the final implosion of a massive equities bubble and the collapse of the dollar itself.
All of these developments require careful planning and staging, not recklessness or random chance. Free-market economies tend to heal and adapt over time. Only constant negative manipulation could cause the kind of steady decline plaguing the U.S. ever since the Federal Reserve was forced into being.
The Fed has had multiple opportunities to strengthen the economic lifespan of America, but has ALWAYS chosen to take the exact opposite actions needed, guaranteeing an inevitable outcome of crisis. The goal of internationalists and international bankers is to acquire ever more centralized authority, and thus, ever more centralized power. The U.S. is an appendage to the great vampire squid, an expendable tool that can be sacrificed today to gain greater treasures tomorrow. Nothing more.
But this reality just does not seem to sink into the skulls of certain people. They simply cannot fathom the idea that the Fed is a saboteur. Not a bumbling greed fueled monster, or even a mad bomber, but a careful and deliberate enemy agent with precise destruction in mind.
Case in point; the recent institution of the Fed rate hike program. No one really gets it and no one is asking the right questions. Why, for example, did the Fed begin raising rates in December? No one asked them to take such measures. Certainly not day traders in the market casino; they were too busy enjoying the fiat inflation of biggest equity bubble in the encyclopedia of humanity. The politicians weren’t demanding any drawback of Fed stimulus, they were too busy enjoying the fraudulent recovery afforded by the recapitalization of too-big-to-fail banks. So, again, why bother promoting rate hikes that are essentially guaranteed to cause a market crisis?
Some might argue that the Fed must raise rates slightly so that they have room to cut them again when their stimulus schemes eventually fail. This is certainly possible, however, such an action only reinforces the position that the Fed is deliberately undermining the U.S. system. To hike rates now only to then cut them immediately after would result in the end of faith in the central bank’s ability to administer our financial structure. A crash would occur regardless.
I do not believe the Fed intends to cut rates again, at least not until it is already too late to stall a full spectrum breakdown in stock markets. Even though the majority of analysts, mainstream and independent, hold the position that the Fed is unlikely to raise rates for a second time (or ever again), I am not convinced that this is the plan. The question remains — why begin raising rates at all if the goal is not to bulldoze forward and squeeze the U.S. economy?
As I wrote in my article “The Global Economic Reset Has Begun,” the Fed has a habit of doing exactly what it says it is going to do. They may fool the public as far as the exact timing of policy changes, but they never back away from the policy changes themselves. I cannot find a single instance in the history of the central bank in which they announced future measures and then didn’t eventually follow through within the year. This is how I predicted the first rate hike in December of last year, and it is why I believe another rate hike is coming this summer. Fed officials today have been adamant that at least two more rate hikes will be initiated in 2016. If they do not enact these hikes, it will be the first example that I will have witnessed or seen in research in which they “backed off” completely from a policy initiative.
Some analysts argue that this makes no sense. The Fed has spent the better part of the past eight years trying to keep equities markets alive. Why would they now risk crashing the same markets with rate hikes that will cut off corporations and banks from cheap or free overnight loans? Why would they strangle the steady stream of stock buybacks that have been supporting the markets for the past few years? Why risk the fragile rice paper psychology of the markets? Why would they kill the “golden goose”?
As the recent jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows, our fiscal foundations are crumbling and eventually, the fundamentals of our economy will overwhelm central bank orchestrated optimism anyway. Keep in mind, the report of only 38,000 jobs added in May does not paint the full picture of the unemployment problem in America.
The BLS and the mainstream media consistently gloss over the REAL job loss statistics including U-6 measurements which indicate that more than 664,000 working age Americans were removed from unemployment rolls and are no longer “counted” as jobless. This brings the grand total number of workers without jobs or that are underemployed to nearly 95 MILLION! The BLS ignores these people in their primary calculations for the national unemployment rate, which magically dropped again last month to 4.7 percent.
While the “official” jobs numbers are bad enough to cause concerns among mainstream traders and economists, the real numbers are far worse.
Nearly every base economic indicator globally, from raw materials demand, to manufacturing and exports, to corporate earnings, to retail sales and employment are printing negative this year. Despite all of this, markets remains levitated (for now) because the insane assumption within the mostly inane world of stocks is that bad economic news ensures the fed will bow to market forces and support the equities bubble for another quarter. When the entirety of investment markets embrace a singular assumption, when the market has "no doubts", this is when bad things happen.
I have to laugh when I hear the claim that the Fed “cannot raise rates” in light of the new data. The fed is not "trapped"; rather, it is the U.S. economy that is trapped with the Fed as the instigator. Obviously, the Fed was well aware of the real unemployment problem as well as numerous other negative data when they hiked rates the first time in December. So, let’s just say it plainly — The Fed is NOT dependent on data when making its decisions. The Fed does whatever it wants to do whenever it feels like doing it, and it is very likely that Fed policy decisions are made months in advance, while publicly scheduled policy meetings are designed just for show.
They may claim that they care about the latest dismal jobs report, or other detrimental fiscal developments, but they don’t. They have their own agenda and their own data points, many of which we will never be privy to.
I would also mention the fact that the Fed has raised rates during recessionary economic conditions on several occasions, including during the onset of the Great Depression; a move which Ben Bernanke later publicly admitted was the ultimate cause of the prolonged depression event. You can read my analysis of this in my article “What Fresh Horror Awaits The Economy After Fed Rate Hike?”
With May’s job report so negative even with all the BLS manipulation, it is presumed that the Fed will not hike rates again at their June meeting. I believe that the Fed is certainly capable of raising in June. The timing of the meeting, right before the vote in the UK on the Brexit referendum, is perhaps not a coincidence.
While I understand the argument that the Fed would be “better off” taking its time and raising in July or September, I want readers to entertain another possible scenario for a moment. Imagine if the Fed raised rates in June to everyone’s shock and surprise. Market turmoil is almost a guarantee. A hike in June BEFORE a Brexit event would also be easier to rationalize to the public than a hike after a Brexit event.
Imagine then that, again, to everyone’s shock and surprise, the Brexit vote is successful and the UK leaves the European Union (a supposed black swan that the IMF has warned will cause a global equities crisis).
At this point, who gets blamed for the resulting equities crash? The Fed? The citizens of the UK? Who? If the globalists wanted to trigger the next leg down in the global economy, I can’t think of better circumstances or a better smokescreen.
I also acknowledge the possibility that only one of these events might be necessary to increase market turmoil. But from the perspective of an evil-minded internationalist, wouldn’t it be spectacular to have both? I could be wrong, but it is something to think about…
If you want answers to questions on why the Fed takes the risks it does, or why internationalists engineer crisis events, I suggest you read my article “The Economic End Game Explained.” Suffice to say, the Fed serves the interests of globalists and Fabian socialists, not the interests of America as a nation, and the globalists know that chaos is the best method for influencing populations to accept a “new order.” I would also say that they are pulling the plug simply because this year is most opportune.
I don’t pretend to fully understand every detail of the timelines of globalists and the motivations behind them, but I do know that the evidence shows they have such timelines, and according to recent actions the clock appears to be running out.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by Spartan , June 08, 2016
Brandon, I would have to agree with your analysis concerning the timing of the rate hike along with the Brexit vote. Another thing that makes this an opportune time would be the presidential election, in my opinion. There are enough crazy things swirling around this politically charged time for a "crisis" to develop in which fingers can be pointed and blame assigned. Just let your imagination run here.
Additionally, a coordinated terrorist cell activation along with more summer rioting would only add fuel to the fire and our worst nightmares could be realized. The season is ripe.
written by Pablo , June 08, 2016
If the fed continues on it's stated path to raise rate (another farcical 0.25 or less), then the outcome of this move is to create the illusion that the US economy is expanding and needs to be tamped down. What is the effect of this move? it would make the US markets a more attractive place to park assets, as there is at least the appearance of a positive yield, vs the ECB and their NIRP world.
This globalist are playing a shell game now, we are in the midst of an economic war, against all who hold any wealth, and against all govt. that do not follow the party line of the western powers.
Look at any prospectus, for any investment class, they all have built in fees ($1000 fees over 10 years on 10K). So, in reality, we already live in a NIRP world, it is just buried in the fine print. these fees are the only things guaranteed in the prospectus. for get about the hyped return/yield.
The shell game will continue, until the last generation of savers has died, and the world will be left with debtors and loan sharks. This is the goal of the central bank planners around the world.
written by Oldtoad , June 08, 2016
This idea has been hard for me to grasp. Makes one think of simple analogies.
Here in Maine the reintroduction of wild turkeys has brought a unwanted side effect, ticks. Ticks can overwhelm a host and kill the moose.
Another example of a group that is not so good for the host is the IRS.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/5/irs-reveals-list-of-tea-party-groups-targeted-for-/
Makes one think, have I been checking for ticks on a regular basis?
written by Sven , June 08, 2016
An enjoyable read as always. I'd just like to weigh in on potential summer chaos. While football, or 'soccer' may not interest everyone, there is a major competition called the European Championships due to kick off in France on June 10th. Though, with all the riots and strikes in France due to the proposed labour reforms (apparently ordered by ze Germans...), not to mention the ongoing state of emergency and associated terror threat, it seems plausable that the competition will either be sabotaged by revolters or terrorists, or even be cancelled by the government over security concerns to distract the mob, as it were. Combined with the possibility of a Brexit, Fed rate hike, unresolved issues with Greece and Deutsche banks troubles, there's barely time to think of Russia, Syria or the South China Sea!
written by Snake skin onesie , June 08, 2016
Do you think the current Fed rate is appropriate? Would a raise in rates be inappropriate?
written by Brandon Smith , June 08, 2016
@Snake
I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriate". I only know what the effects will be when the Fed does in fact raise rates, and the effects will be negative. If you look at the behavior of markets recently, they are operating completely on the assumption that the Fed will not be raising rates for quite some time. If this assumption turns out to be false, then a considerable pullback in stocks will occur.
One could argue that this is in fact "appropriate" given the hollow market bubble and the need for a correction, but I would point out that a real correction would result in a crash; a crash that the Fed engineered - an action which is highly inappropriate.
written by Snake skin onesie , June 08, 2016
If low rates created a bubble and a rate hike will create a crash, then any action can be criticized.
What reason do you have to believe that rate hikes will cause a crash? If you look at the last 15 years, all of the rate hikes were between 2004 to 2006 and then in 2015, but none of the largest drops in the Dow, which is a good proxy for the overall market, were during those time frames (the 2015 hike happened after the most recent major drop in the link below and the market has been relatively stable since then).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Federal_Open_Market_Committee_actions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industri
al_Average
I acknowledge that rate increases can have delayed effects, but the market reacts to significant news such as that almost immediately. I find little reason to believe that a hike would cause some kind of immediate crash. A 100 point swing occurring from a Yellen comment or the like is not significant to justify the idea that the market is betting it all on stable or falling rates.
written by Brandon Smith , June 08, 2016
@Snake
I think you need to look back at market history more carefully, you've made a lot of statements that are simply false.
The Fed raised rates at the onset of the Great Depression and made it ten times worse. Ben Bernanke openly admitted this. The Dow dropped 10% AFTER the first rate hike (a mere .25 hike) in December, and the drop was NOT immediate, it was gradual. No crash is ever immediate. They always develop over time. The bounce back has NOT been stable, it has been erratic, and the recent dismal jobs print shows that the rest of the economy is tanking while the markets levitate on the assumption that the Fed will not hike again, or that they will reverse course.
You cannot simply focus on stocks. You will miss the larger picture.
Also, as I have said in numerous articles and interviews, the Fed is likely increasing rates at a slow pace in order to "steam valve" the markets over time. They want a controlled demolition of the economy in which they hope they can determine the outcome.
All of my positions are based on the Fed's own behavior and history. And yes, there is MUCH to be criticized.
written by 115 , June 08, 2016
The fed needs 2% inflation before they can raise rates....ythe fed is buying crude oil futures so that might just get them that target. The prob is, once they raise, they will contine buing corporate bonds to offset any major selloff....the fed does not care about mainstream. Mainstream means nothing to satan's moneychangers.
written by Frank W. Hooper , June 08, 2016
Thanks for bringing up the denial of some in the liberty movement. We Americans have difficulty believing that the U.S. is expendable. Like an Admiral whose ship is going down who simply takes a dinghy over to another ship and hoists his flag there and continues the plan while the old flagship burns. We have served our purpose and they care no more for what happens to us than they care about the people suffering and dying in the Middle East as a result of their doings.
We don't have anything left of value that can't be transferred elsewhere or that they can't come back for later.
written by Brandon Smith , June 08, 2016
@115
I don't think they will need to buy corporate bonds. Their goal is an eventual devaluation of equities markets, just at a pace slow enough to prevent immediate collapse. So far they are pulling back on stimulus and rely on jawboning instead, which can only last so long. I agree though that they are caring less and less about the mainstream perception of their performance. When elitist criminals no longer care that people notice their crimes, something much worse is about to happen.
written by Dwain Dibley , June 08, 2016
I think you might appreciate this:
Money
http://carl-random-thoughts.blogspot.com/
written by Snake skin onesie , June 09, 2016
@Brandon - I only made 2 statements of opinion, that the market reacts quickly and that the occurrence of small swings is not enough justify the idea of total market reliance on the Fed, so I wouldn't say I made "a lot of statements that are simply false." Most of what I posted are publicly available facts.
The entirety of the 2007-2009 crash happened in about 16 months with about 2/3 of that coming in only 6 months (and that 6 months containing a nearly 40% crash by itself) even though the Fed had raised rates consistently over a two year period that ended a year earlier. In other words, the market dropped by 40% in a quarter as much time as the amount of time between the last rate hike and the start of the major leg of the crash (6 months versus the more than two years between the last hike in June 2006 and the start of the real crash in August 2008).
However, as I already acknowledged, the Fed's actions can have delayed effects, and additionally, practically by definition, increased interest rates should create downward pressure on other markets, but where is the actual data to back up the assertions that Fed action was the primary driver and where is the data to back up the assertion that Fed action this time will create another crash?
written by Brandon Smith , June 09, 2016
@snake
You also said that the recent drop in markets occurred BEFORE the rate hike in December, rather than after (which is what really happened). This is a false statement.
Your other statements of opinion were also simply false according to the documented facts.
I never said that the Fed rate hikes were the "primary driver" of any particular crash. The Great Depression, for instance, was a combination of various Fed policies and international banking actions which in led to disaster. Fed actions work hand in hand with corporate bank criminality. If you want a full analysis of this along with the effects of Fed rate hikes going into recessionary conditions, then I highly suggest you read Milton Friedman's studies on the Great Depression and the Federal Reserve; the same studies which Ben Bernanke publicly admitted were CORRECT.
Friedman didn't have the whole picture, but he at least understood the Fed was the primary trigger mechanism for a greater crisis.
If you have doubts that a similar scenario is taking place today, then I don't know what to tell you. As stated earlier, a mere .25 increase caused a 10% drop in markets over two months. The bounce after is predicated on the HOPE that another hike will not occur. Markets are now utterly addicted to cheap fiat from the Fed. You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but the bottom line is the Fed controls monetary policy and the markets are now COMPLETELY dependent on those policy decisions. This is not how markets are supposed to operate, but Fed actions have irreversibly changed how equities function. The fed has the joystick. Everything that happens next is their fault, with the BIS and the IMF helping pull the strings.
written by Snake skin onesie , June 09, 2016
I was referring to most recent drop in the Wiki page I linked, which was on 9/1/2016. If you look at my first post, that's what it says (i.e., "in the link below").
A 10% drop? The same thing happened in September with no rate hike. Drops of that magnitude happen all the time, probably close to once a year if I had to guess. A 10% drop is only half of the accepted definition of a bear market, not to mention that the Dow and S&P are higher now than they were at the time of the hike.
You're asserting that those indices being higher is due to widespread reliance on the Fed. Did poll the audience? Do you believe that Ben Bernanke is economic genius while you simultaneously rail on the Fed? Some of your points are about things that happened in the 1930s. Excuse me while I mail in this order for GE to my broker in New York.
written by Pologrounds , June 09, 2016
Focusing on the will they/won't they is all well and good for rate hikes, but what are the actual triggers of deterioration in the U.S. economy that are tell-tale signs of controlled demolition that is being glossed over with jawboning(by whoever: the Fed, the President, GS, JPMC, etc.)? How can the bond market bubble pop? How are pensions and 401k markets being looted right now, under the public's nose? What is the scope of the auto loan/student loan bubble? How has a real estate bubble been reinflated via more securitization of rents? Manufacturing and industry in this country are just about in shambles, all data is thoroughly manipulated/falsified and small business ownership is either difficult to create/costly to upkeep. When are these bows going to break? I'm just really "Fed" up with this game being played so slowly and Chinese Water Torture-ingly methodical.
written by Brandon Smith , June 09, 2016
@snake
You must be confusing your incorrect statements. We have not reached September 1st, 2016, yet. The most recent drop was post December 2015, AFTER the rate hike. The correlation is undeniable.
You also seem to be arguing in circles. 10% drops in the market do not happen "all the time" (in light of Fed manipulation they have rarely happened in the last 7 years), but they have happened over the past few years ON THE THREAT OF THE REMOVAL OF STIMULUS. First in the removal of QE and the Fed Taper, and now on the removal of NIRP. If you can't see the obvious correlation then there is nothing I can do for you.
I am not "assuming" the indices are higher due to Fed reliance. It is a fact. The Fed has been feeding low and zero interest overnight loans to corporations and banks ever since TARP. Just look at the TARP audit and the trillions in overnight loans given to said companies. These companies then used these cheap loans to initiate stock buybacks, thereby artificially driving up the values of remaining shares. Even the mainstream financial media openly admits that markets have been reliant on stock buybacks. Buybacks are now diminishing as the fed raises rates.
As stated repeatedly, the Fed is steam valving the economy. You have foolishly hyperfocused on stocks. If you look at almost all other fundamentals, the economy is moving into recessionary territory. Stocks are always the LAST indicator to crash during a fiscal crisis.
Your other statements are erratic and make little sense. Ben Bernanke is not a "genius" but he is a Fed insider privy to information the rest of us are not. The last crash event similar in scope to what we are experiencing now was the Great Depression. You should probably educate yourself on the history of that event and the Fed's involvement instead of making ignorant statements as if the Fed is not culpable for it's own monetary policies. I think at this point you are wasting my time.
written by Brandon Smith , June 09, 2016
Richard Fisher admitted in an interview with CNBC, the U.S. central bank in particular has made its business the manipulation of the stock market to the upside since 2009:
"What the Fed did — and I was part of that group — is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.
It’s sort of what I call the “reverse Whimpy factor” — give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow.
I’m not surprised that almost every index you can look at … was down significantly." [Referring to the results in the stock market after the Fed raised rates in December.]
Fisher went on to hint at the impending danger:
"I was warning my colleagues, “Don’t go wobbly if we have a 10-20% correction at some point…. Everybody you talk to … has been warning that these markets are heavily priced.”
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000474362
written by olde reb , June 10, 2016
Brandon,
The link is to a mathematical analysis of the FRBNY's exclusive handling of disbursement accounts of funds from Treasury security auctions. Ref. 31 CFR 375.3. It is based upon revelations by a professor teaching a graduate course in Money and Banking.
The conclusion is that funds from the auctions of deficit spending securities (bills, bonds, or notes), which are earmarked as a small percentage on securities sold to roll over securities that are maturing or are being called, cannot be credited to a government account. If they were, there would be no increase in the national debt nor would there be any increase in the amount of currency in circulation (inflation). If the money from deficit securities (currently $2 trillion annually) does not go to the government, where does it go ?
The money from roll over security sales is (through a government account) paid to the Primary Dealers for their task of collecting redeemed securities from the market. It is easily visualized that funds from deficit securities is similarly sent to the PD's (as secret owners of a privately held corporate Board of Governors of the FR ?), but since no securities were purchased for the funds, the money is pure profit. Profit of the Federal Reserve legally belongs to the government. Hiding funds that belongs to the government is embezzlement. The amount involved is roughly $6 billion daily—7/52.
I would be glad to discuss the writing with you.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Ref: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4819...ve-revised
written by TonyRUs , June 10, 2016
The Fed and other Globalists' goal is to crash the US economy (among other economies). They, with help from the tools in our gov't, have put us in a position so this is possible, and the raising of interest rates could very well be the catalyst. Yet even if some free-market patriot was somehow able to wrest control of the country, of our economy, with the backing of the people, that is exactly what would need to be done anyway--raise rates, along with a crap load of other changes like regulation, tax and spending reductions, etc. But the immediate result would be the same, a crash, followed by a reset into freedom with free markets.
So at this point, it would seem that the (inevitable) crash would be less important than what happens after.
If you were this patriot, wouldn't you also 'crash' the economy to reset the economy?
written by Brandon Smith , June 10, 2016
@Tony
No, I would not. It's all well and good to play with theory, but in the real world there are human costs. A collapse of the economy would result in much death. I find this unacceptable.
If possible, it would be much better to transition the economy into localized production focusing on necessities first. The economy does not need to be reset, it needs to be left alone to function as a free market should. Localization could help to avoid tragedy. Of course, the elites will never allow this to happen while they are alive.
written by Rien , June 11, 2016
It seems to me that the article and the replies attribute all too much power to the Fed.
Sure they have some impact, but they are only one input to the economy.
Bernanke "admitting" the great recession was their fault is simply arrogant in the extreme in believing that. Maybe he only "admitted" that to let us believe that they are in control? Nah, probably not, he probably is that arrogant (or mistaken)
I do not think that he impact of central banking is benign, but is is also not that big that they are in de driver seat. An economy is way to complex for that.
written by Brandon Smith , June 11, 2016
@Rien
Central banks are middlemen for international banking syndicates, but I think you are greatly underestimating the influence of central banks given the evidence at hand. The derivatives bubble was directly caused by the Fed and it's artificially low interest rates. The central bank in tandem with corrupt politicians has dominated the movements of the American economy for decades. It was not Bernanke taking credit on behalf of the Fed for the Great Depression, it was Bernanke ADMITTING that Milton Friedman was correct in his investigations into the Fed and the depression. This is not "arrogance", this is FACT. Read Friedman's analysis if you have doubts.
The fact of the matter is, central bankers are in complete control of our economic framework. They can't control supply and demand per say, but they can manipulate all other factors to hide true supply and demand. To deny this conspiracy is to deny reality:
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Carroll Quigley, CFR insider, mentor to Bill Clinton, from Tragedy And Hope
"It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks."
Carroll Quigley, CFR insider, mentor to Bill Clinton, from Tragedy And Hope
written by Tom in Vallejo, Ca. , June 11, 2016
So the rich elites get all the money and power the world has to offer, then what ? What will they do, buy, where will they go and how will they get there ? no one will work for free and there will be too many slaves to control, will they have to KILL all but enough to carry a sedan chair and when one of them dies then what ?
written by Brandon Smith , June 11, 2016
@Tom
How did the Pharaohs of Egypt manage their society? How did they live? Like living gods, essentially. That is what the internationalists want, just on a global scale. They also openly discuss the possibility of an 80% or more reduction of population. Look up Ted Turner's admissions in interviews, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjIMoaUBHB0
written by Strange days , June 12, 2016
Terrific article , though we are seeing with retrospect the game is not as controlled as Brendon believed .(first full article l have read so new insights are possible) .
I'm convinced at heart the system is Masonic and the three branches of state : politic , military , economy are governed by this order. Rarely( if ever) are those with hands on the levers of power a part of the decision making clique (since human vanity unbalances judgement) as Quigley describes . They are the social jugglers and technicians balancing the game objectives with political realities of maintaining cohesion and order. So
So the three branches strategize together unseen constantly tricking the public into accepting changes (often by fiat accompli) .
But their game HAS been seriously derailed buy the lose of Russia and China .
Looks at the AFC in 1997(target China ) , which failed .Soon followed by 2001 and invasion of Afganistan ,wedge between China and Iran etc . But GW fucked up bad time or was this deliberate ? By destroying a state completely(Iraq) they can set up a pure Masonic Gov , unfettered by past ties.
Alas Putin has derailed the game again in Syria .Letting Iran pump oil was also an attack on Russia and a kick up the backside to Foot dragging Saudis.
Expect a big false flag in the next couple of weeks is my insight .Sinking an aircraft carrier would make great human theatre ,declare war on Russia and roll up our world ,close media sights ditch the money and arrest thorns .
Has anyone observed the sickle on the phi symbol? 10 is also the house of Capricorn ruler of status power and gov .
written by Brandon Smith , June 12, 2016
@Strange
No, I'm afraid you have been duped by the false East/West paradigm often perpetuated by people like Paul Craig Roberts. There is more than enough evidence proving that Russia and China are as controlled by the international financiers as the U.S. and Europe. Nothing has been derailed - they are following the same strategy they always have. Any nation that is tied to the BIS is owned by the BIS. You are welcome to read about how the East serves the interests of the elites here:
http://alt-market.com/articles/2716-false-eastwest-paradigm-and-the-end-of-freedom
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2126-false-eastwest-paradigm-hides-the-rise-of-global-currency
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2168-the-new-world-order-and-the-rise-of-the-east
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2753-the-fall-of-america-signals-the-rise-of-the-new-world-order
written by Rien , June 12, 2016
@Brandon, it may seem odd, but I am not denying the conspiracy (for lack of a better word). But I do doubt their control of the world economy.
Sure they would like to believe (and probably do) that they are the one's in power. But all they can come up with is post-fact analysis why this-and-that happend. They are quite unable to predict what will happen when they do so-and-so.
Control is the ability the predict an outcome based on inputs.
Economics is most definitely not a science and hence it is impossible to 'control' the economy.
Instead what these groups are doing is to post-fact nudge the word in the direction they would like to see: see things like the patriot act, homeland security, military industrial complex, financial conglomerates etc.
This is not less nefarious than a manipulation through control, but it does highlight the fact that "we let them". It is our collective response to events that allows them to achieve their agenda. Not omnipotence on their part.
Which is a good thing: what we gave, we can take back. But only if we realise that we have that power.
If otoh we believe that they are in control, then we are powerless to prevent them, and the conclusion would be that we need a more powerful (but benevolent) government?
written by Brandon Smith , June 12, 2016
@Rien
I agree that there is no way for anyone including the elites to predict every element of every potential outcome, which is why they have a habit of using a "scattershot strategy"; they attempt multiple events and methods at once and then pick those that seem to produce the desired effect. It's easier to predict the future when you are controlling most of the factors - this is especially true of the economy.
I do think they are deluded in their quest for full spectrum awareness. There is ALWAYS a wild card factor to any situation that can throw off the best laid plans.
