Tuesday, December 3, 2019

On The Tyrant Lincoln's War Of Northern Aggression

We still have Lincoln to blame for the mess we're in today!

The U.S. Constitution was a document designed to place restraints on the federal government the Founders were creating, not a document to restrain the people or the states. This is an important distinction

The Constitution would not have been ratified if not for the promise of a bill of rights to further check the federal government. That's because most of the Founders — particularly the Anti-Federalists — feared the Constitution wasn't strong enough to prevent the federal government from stealing power from the states.

It was commonly understood prior to 1861 that the states reserved the right to secede. There had been talk of secession by the New England states many times. They called it "disunion."

New England Federalists in the early 1800s feared that Virginia was gaining too much power and would act against the interests of New England states and in the interests of Southern ones. Many of them also opposed the War of 1812.  After Thomas Jefferson's election, Federalist Stephen Higgenson claimed the federal government "had fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners" who would "govern and depress New England."

The complaints of New England Federalists essentially mirrored those later made by Southerners advocating for secession in the 1860s. And in fact, in the 1830s and 1840s, abolitionists, chief among them William Lloyd Garrison, called for "disunion" over the slavery issue. A New England Anti-Slavery Convention was held and attendees voted in favor of secession by a margin of 250-24.
So we see that secession was not a wholly Southern construct. Even Abraham Lincoln, as a representative, recognized the states had the right to secede — he only changed his mind after became president.

To "save the Union" — which Lincoln stated at the outset was his goal in prosecuting the war, whether he had to preserve slavery or abolish it to do so – Lincoln trampled on the rule of law when  he sent federal troops to occupy the seceding states and force them back into the union. The natural result of Lincoln's actions is the imperial presidency we have today.

On Nov. 19, 1863, at the dedication of the military cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Lincoln spoke these words:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
It's curious that he took the phrase "that all men are created equal" from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but stopped there rather than continue with the words, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and institute a new Government."

The Civil War was not fought to create "a new birth of freedom," as Lincoln suggested. Nor did it create a "government of the people, by the people and for the people." It did quite the opposite.
As H.L. Menken later wrote about the Gettysburg Address in "Smart Set" in 1920:

[I]t is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it.  Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — "that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

The states that left the Union to join the Confederacy did so in the true sense of the Jeffersonian principle of self-government, as stated in the Declaration. Lincoln's invasion of the Confederate States stood that idea on its head.

The threat of secession was a check on federal power that both New England and Southern states invoked between the ratification of the Constitution and beginning of the Civil War. It was generally understood that, because the Constitution was silent on the issue, secession was a viable alternative to checking federal power.

In fact, when during the Constitutional Convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state, James Madison proclaimed: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." The proposal was removed.

Lincoln's claims in his address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people " would somehow "perish from the earth" if the Union lost the war was hogwash. Representative democracy would have continued in the Union and in the Confederacy regardless of the outcome. The  Union and the Confederacy could have existed side by side as trading partners an allies, just as Mexico and Canada do today.

And remember, neither side entered the war over the issue of slavery. Lincoln's stated purpose for invading the Confederacy was "preserving the Union."

Finally, the final outcome of the Civil War did not usher in "a new birth of freedom." It did quite the opposite. It consolidated federal power, neutered the 9th and 10th Amendments and gave birth to the fascist system and the imperial presidency under which we now suffer. There is no check on federal power, the states are essentially meaningless and the political class is running roughshod over the Constitution and our traditional institutions.

Do Republicans really want to think of themselves as belonging to the party of Lincoln?

Yours for the truth,

Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

References: History.com
"The Real Lincoln," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"The Civil War," by Bruce Catton

Sunday, December 1, 2019


  • Recklessly careless heedless and feckless libertine "liberal" criminal politicians always buy votes by bribing people, using borrowed money, under false claims of there being "YAY FREE STUFF!," as their fraudulent pretense to justify the theft: of both our elections, and also of everyone involved who accepts that "YAY FREE STUFF!" in STEAD of earning it's, own economic futures.

    And that's almost child abuse, as they target the always larger incoming voter demographic of young people who have never yet earned anything, are in debt, and so remain insecure and also used to depending on receiving free stuff from their parents.

    Meanwhile, idiot but honest conservatives target only the smaller demographic of parents who did earn stuff, with their inane promises of smaller government (which translates as less free stuff for the kids) lower taxes, and more money in your pocket.

    So apart from only appealing to the smallest demographic group, it also simultaneously alienates that largest voting group.

    Which is why we even now, without understanding why, still call them "the evil party" and "the stupid party," respectively!

    There - now you never have to pay some alleged "expert authority's" obscene salary just to take a "political science" course!

    PS: While liberals may always seem to be the majority, they are really always only a criminal minority, BUT they can usually entice the next, ever-larger generation of young college-aged low-information voters to support their "YAY FREE STUFF!" lying promises, because that's all the kids are used to anyway (free stuff from their parents; and they're insecure by nature and timid about getting jobs) and they don't realize that if and when they (like their dumbass parents did) vote for "YAY FREE STUFF!" in stead of learning to work to fend for them selves, they not only cheat them SELVES of a chance to become self reliant, but they ALSO spend their OWN future inheritance as the liberals rack up endless debt on Chinese credit cards in their names, too - so they are being tempted by leftist devils to sacrifice their own abilities to profit now, in exchange for also stealing and depleting their own future inheritance now!

Saturday, November 30, 2019


From Peter Townsend, author of  ‘Nothing to do with Islam – Investigating the West’s Most Dangerous Blind Spot

The Knives are Out! (And Have Been for a Very Long Time)

One weekend, two knife attacks in major European cities - London and The Hague. Obviously this is no coincidence. I suspect, however, that few people will realize what deep historical roots such random stabbing frenzies have in Islam’s past. 
The Kharijites were a hugely influential early (7th century onwards) group of discontents within the ‘House of Islam’ who were convinced that the Muslim community was straying from the purity that existed during the time of Muhammad. They firmly believed that what the world really needed was a state wherein, as their catch-cry incessantly repeated, there would be ‘No judgement but Allah’s!’ 
And how exactly was this lofty goal to be achieved? Here is how a historian of the movement, Muhamad bin Ahmad al-Malati, described their modus operandi: “...they would ‘go out with their swords into the markets while people would stand around not realising what was happening; they would shout “no judgement except God!” and plunge their blades into whomever they could reach, and go on killing until they themselves were killed’. Sound familiar?
ISIS, which can in many ways be seen as the modern-day descendants of the Kharijites, was not slow to learn the lesson. Here is, for example, an exhortation from the April 2016 issue of their online magazine, Dabiq: “One must either make the journey to dar-al-Islam, joining the ranks of the mujahidin or wage jihad by himself with the resources available to him (knives, guns, explosives etc.) to kill the crusaders and other disbelievers and apostates...”
Over the next few days we will probably be ‘treated’ to multiple theories to try and explain the sudden surge in random knife attacks. Some of these will, no doubt, work very hard to get Islam off the hook by blaming alienation, psychological stress or western foreign policy. As you read these, remember that there is indeed nothing new under the sun! We are faced with an ancient ideology, that uses tried and tested methods. We must get to grips with this fact and target all our attention to defeating its truth-claims if we want the knives to go back in their sheaths.

The elephant in the room: A donkey-elephant Frankenstein

From here:

Exclusive: Craige McMillan predicts explosion of anger once true corruption is revealed

(Personally, I think this is a tad premature bit of wishful thinking, but we all need a little hope, so) ...!

Everybody knows the anger is there, in the middle of the room. The question is, what happens when it explodes?
Right now, the Trump haters and the Trump lovers are both angry, but they are angry about different things.
The Trump haters (let's just call them the left) are angry because the ship of state has begun a hard right turn. All of their patient work, accomplished over past generations, is crashing down around them as the ship abruptly changes course and enters rough seas.
All of this has happened simply because the left lost the 2016 presidential election – something they believed at the time to be impossible! Trump and his army of deplorables were supposed to be humiliated at the polls, ground into the dust by the media, routed from the government and removed from the face of the earth. The left's agenda was finally to rise from the ashes of the judicially crippled Constitution.
Not that Hillary had enough functional brain cells remaining to accomplish any of this had she been elected. It was Obama's holdovers who were already in place and could be counted upon to implement a new socialist paradise; in the language of the software world, America 2.0. Big media, entertainment, tech and education would be pleased to help erase any memory of the original America.
he right was used to losing, because even when they won an election the left's agenda still continued forward – just at a slower pace than when leftists won. Compromise always leaned left. Federal judges were the left's bulwark against policy corrections to the right, all the way up to a compromised Supreme Court (Scalia and Roberts).
Administrative law ensured that much leftist administratively devised nonsense was never even subject to review by the courts. Between the courts and the embedded bureaucracy, which we now call the Deep State, leftist schemes almost always lived long and prospered. The nation itself under leftist tyranny, not so much. We were a hollow shell of our founders' dreams for ordinary Americans.
Why is the anger so vitriolic now? First, big media is fanning the flames. It's the only kind of story that generates mouse clicks anymore. Social media gives both sides an echo chamber; the more trivial a news item is, the more attention it receives and the bigger the boost from social media.
Second, corruption is being taken seriously by William Barr and the Department of Justice, and President Trump. Hunter Biden's Ukraine gas and oil payments are only a gnat on the butthole of payola the elites have built up for themselves over previous administrations, Democrat and Republican. Remember, Washington, D.C., is one of the richest ZIP codes in the nation. Their business is government. Guess what their "product" is? Guess who pays for their product?
Corruption is the electoral wild card in the 2020 election. The political right is mildly aware of corruption, but clueless as to its scale. The political left is clueless, period. Everything from American foreign aid to "climate change" horror stories (when hasn't the climate changed?) has been a massive payola scheme the elites manufactured to enrich themselves and their friends, while forcing our nation to pay for it all.
The leftist politicians have manipulated their clueless voters for decades. "Do it for the children" while we run the illegal drugs and human trafficking networks over the porous southern border. Why else their demands for open borders? A woman's right to choose (to abort her baby) has never been anything other than the abortion industry selling its product, aborted babies, to medical researchers … and worse. Why do you think abortion up to the moment of birth is now on the abortionists' wish list?
When the facts come out and leftists recognize the magnitude of deception used against them over past several generations to support leftist "causes" the anger is going to explode! Put yourself in their place: everything they have believed in and worked for over generations will be shown to be a lie.
The elephant in the room is really a donkey-elephant Frankenstein monster. Trump correctly identified the big picture and is dismantling the elites' cash flow and networks. They are trying anything and everything to stop him. I don't think it can any longer be stopped. What is coming next will put this week's turkey talk over the dinner table into perspective.

MOST Mass-Shooters Are NON-WHITE

Vice profiles mass shooters, leaves out the two biggest factors

Vice News, citing a study funded by the federal government and conducted by The Violence Project, claims that "Nearly all mass shooters since 1966 had 4 things in common." Curiously — or maybe not — the study leaves off the two most common traits.

The study funded by the Department of Justice found that in instances in which four or more people were shot in a public place, the killer most often had experience with childhood trauma; a personal crisis or specific grievance; a "script" or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap; and the one trait that is common in all shootings, access to a gun. (Well, duh!)

"Data is data," Jillian Peterson, a psychologist at Hamline University and co-author of the study told Vice. "Data isn't political. Our hope is that it pushes these conversations further."

Well, data isn't political, that is true. But people are, and people can slant the data to fit their narrative. And that's what apparently happened here.

The study claimed to have found five profiles of mass shooters. It lists them as:
  • K-12 shooters: White males, typically students or former students of the school, with a history of trauma. Most are suicidal, plan their crime extensively, and make others aware of their plans at some point before the shooting. They use multiple guns that they typically steal from a family member.
  • College and university shooters: Non-white males who are current students of the university, are suicidal, and have a history of violence and childhood trauma. They typically use legally obtained handguns and leave behind some sort of manifesto.
  • Workplace shooters: Fortysomething males without a specific racial profile. Most are employees of their targeted location, often a blue-collar job site, and have some grievance against the workplace. They use legally purchased handguns and assault rifles.
  • Place of worship shooters: White males in their 40s, typically motivated by hate or domestic violence that spills out into public. Their crimes typically involve little planning.
  • Shooters at a commercial location (such as a store or restaurant): White men in their 30s with a violent history and criminal record. They typically have no connection to the targeted location and use a single, legally obtained firearm. About a third show evidence of a "thought disorder," a term for a mental health condition, like schizophrenia, that results in disorganized thinking, paranoia, or delusions.

Notably absent is a category for gang violence. Blacks (14.6 percent) and Hispanics (17.6 percent) make up only 32 percent of the U.S. population but account for the overwhelming majority of homicides — including mass shooting incidents. According to FBI crime statistics from 2018, blacks and Hispanics together killed 7,894 people. That's almost twice the number killed by whites even though whites make up about 62 percent of the population.

One look at the faces of 2019 mass shooters shows that the overwhelming number are black or Hispanic.

But even if you want to buy into the fake news Vice (and The Violence Project) are peddling — that the vast majority of mass shooters are white — the study still failed to list the most common denominator in the type of shootings it focused on. That is the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs. The website SSRIstories.org has a collection of more than 6,000 stories that have appeared in the media in which psychotropic drugs are a factor.

As usual, Vice is fake news.

It was a bad week for the Communist News Network (CNN)

CNN, known for its garbage reporting and Trump Derangement Syndrome, had a particularly bad week last week, even by its own standards. Now it, and the leftwing Daily Beast, are about to be on the receiving end of a defamation suit.

After spending two weeks proclaiming there were "bombshells" in the impeachment testimony that turned out to be little more than the fizzle of wet firecrackers, both media organs peddled a story last week allegedly from the attorney of indicted Ukrainian businessman Lev Parnas, that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, had gone to Vienna to meet former Ukrainian Prosecutor Victor Shokin to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden.

Nunes denies the story and announced he was going to sue CNN and the Daily Beast, which repeated the story.

A spokesman for Mr. Nunes released an official statement to The Washington Times:
"These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving."
CNN's story bears a striking resemblance to a previous phony story peddled by CNN and the rest of MSM regarding secret visits to foreign countries by supporters President Trump. The media claimed for months that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen — who now wears prison stripes for campaign finance violations and lying to Congress — went to Prague to meet with shady Kremlin-linked figures in a conspiracy to get Russia's help in the 2016 election. McClatchy News even claimed that it had evidence that Cohen's phone "pinged" a tower in Prague. The story was fake news.
Nunes is already suing the McClatchy newspaper chain for defamation.

Also, we need to remind everyone — as Nunes reminded in his opening statements — that the pencil-necked Rep. Adam Schiff, who is leading the impeachment charade for the Democrats, actually spoke on the telephone with two Ukrainians who claimed to have nude pictures of the president, and he sought to make arrangements to have the FBI meet with the Ukrainians to get them. It turns out Schiff-for-brains was actually talking on the phone to a couple of Ukrainian pranksters.

Business as usual at Bloomberg News

New York's former Nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg has opened his multi-billion-dollar checkbook and is seeking to buy the Democrat nomination for president in a late bid to "save" the party from itself.

Bloomberg owns the vast Bloomberg News empire, and his entry into the race has created what might appear to be a sketchy situation for Bloomberg reporters and reporterettes. How are they going to cover the race in a manner that is fair to all parties?

No worries. Bloomberg the company announced it would continue its ongong policy not to cover Bloomberg the man, even though he is now Bloomberg the candidate. Nor would Bloomberg the company cover any of Bloomberg the candidate's opponents in the Democrat field. Bloomberg the company will, however, continue to cover Trump.

In other words it's business as usual for Bloomberg the company. It'll continue working as opposition research for the Democrat Party.

The fake news strategy

One of the most common tactics of the legacy media these days is to publish a story based on hearsay or inuendo, give it a click-baity headline and let it stew on social media for a while. The story gets lots of traction as it scurries across the internet and other outlets pick it up and run with it.
After a short time, the original publishers will pull the story down, sometimes issue a retraction and, more rarely, an apology for the fake news.

But by then the story has done its damage. Most readers don't read beyond the headline. Some read a paragraph or two. Minds are made up and the issue is settled. Hardly anyone knows the story has been pulled, and few, if any, see the retraction, if one is issued. The media have set their narrative.
Some worry that they can no longer tell which media organs are publishing fake news and which aren't. How can you tell?

With a short attention span you can't. You have to spend time reading and verifying. One thing is for sure, if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times and The Washington Post publish it, it's likely propaganda if not outright fake news. Just look back over the last three-plus years at their reporting on Trump-Russia collusion and now the Ukraine hoax and see how much they've gotten wrong.

If they've lied once, they'll lie again. Their strategy is to get a knee-jerk reaction out of you, get you riled up and then move you on to the next phony outrage. It's about ratings, keeping the status quo and keeping you steeped in fake news.

The Slimes is at it again

Here's more fake news from The New York Times. As the Trump impeachment farce has dragged the Democrats into Neverland, the establishment media are working overtime to separate Ukraine from the 2016 election meddling narrative in order to tie Ukraine corruption around Trump's neck.
The official MSM narrative being peddled now by The Slimes and rest of the legacy propaganda media is that Russia engaged in a campaign to frame Ukraine for its own meddling. Thus, the meddling is all Russia and Ukraine corruption is all Trump.

But in 2016, according to The Washington Examiner, The Slimes itself reported that "Ukraine's ‘newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau,' which worked in conjunction with America's FBI, was in possession of a mysterious, handwritten diary that showed (Trump's one-time campaign manager Paul) Manafort was receiving millions of dollars in payments from one of the country's pro-Russian politicians. ‘Investigators assert,' the Times reported, ‘that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials."

In 2017 Politico reported that "Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers."

According to the report, "A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

"The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails," Politico reported.

Now they want you to believe that it was only the Russians who meddled. And for the record, there is still no direct evidence that the Russia meddled in the campaign, even though that has become conventional wisdom. The so-called "intelligence report" issued in 2016 that Hillary Clinton claimed was endorsed by "17 U.S. intelligence agencies" actually found no conclusive evidence. It claimed that a Russian spend of a couple hundred thousand dollars for ads and fake stories on Facebook, some Russian Twitter bots and some Trump-supporting figures appearing on RT was Russian meddling. And even lying James Comey, the fired and disgraced former FBI director, admitted the FBI never was allowed to examine the Democrat National Committee's computer server for evidence of Russian hacking. Instead, the bureau relied on the word of a Ukrainian-linked company named CrowdStrike that handled the DNC's computer security.

--Jay Baker

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Here's How And Why CRYPTO Is Really The Globalist Banksters' Wet Dream

From Bob Livingston Alerts, Nov. 27 at 11:03 a.m.

The rush to a cashless society only serves globalist interests

A fundamental pillar of true free markets is the existence of choice; the availability of options from production to provider to purchase mechanism without interference from governments or corporate monopolies. Choice means competition, and competition drives progress. Choice can also drive changes within society, for if people know a better way of doing things exists, why would anyone want to stay trapped within the confines of a limited system? At the very least, people should be allowed to choose economic mechanisms that work best for their particular situation.

This is not how our society functions today, and free market do not exist anywhere in modern nations including the U.S. Whenever I hear someone (usually a socialist) blame free market "capitalism" for the oppressive ailments of the world, I have to laugh. The alliance between governments and corporate monopolies (what Mussolini called national socialism or fascism) makes free markets utterly impossible. What we have today is an amalgamation of socialist economic interference and corporatocracy. Our system is highly restrictive and micro-managed for everyone except the money elites, who do not have to follow the same rules the rest of us do.

Of course, I might be preaching to the choir when it comes to these issues. But there are some underlying developments being pushed forward by globalists hell-bent on a one world monetary system and a one world government that even many liberty activists are not fully aware of.

In alternative economic circles, the U.S. dollar is seen as the end-all-be-all of fiat currency dominance. Many activists see it as the key to the power of the global elites, and they think the Federal Reserve is the top of the globalist pyramid. This is not exactly true.

The U.S. dollar is itself just another tool of the banking cabal, and tools sometimes lose their usefulness over time. While it could be said that for the past century the dollar as the world reserve currency was the core of globalist influence, this is about to change, and we can see the signs today. The rush toward a cashless society in the past few years is startling and unfortunately too many liberty activists have been suckered into thinking that this is a good thing.

There are a number of reasons for this. As mentioned above, activists see the dollar (or Fed note) as fuel for the globalist machine, and so obviously they would like to see it go down in flames. They also are generally proponents of free markets, and the exploding trend of cryptocurrencies has given them the illusion that "choice" is returning to economy through "monetary competition." I understand the basis for this attitude, and I appreciate where it's coming from. I also have never been a proponent of the dollar or any other central bank fiat system. This article should not be misinterpreted as a defense of dollar hegemony.

That said, there is a much bigger agenda at play here, and the dollar is only one fading part of it as it is being quietly replaced by a completely digital framework. We have to once again ask ourselves — who really benefits from a sudden shift in the economic and monetary world? Who gains political and social power through a cashless society? Is it the public? Or is it the same banking elites and globalists that have always held sway over our economic structure?

In 2017 I published an article called 'The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin.' In it, I warned that the trendy marketing of cryptocurrencies to the general public by the mainstream media was extremely suspicious and contrary to the notion that the establishment was "terrified" of bitcoin and crypto putting them out of business. I also warned of the deep involvement of international banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan in the progress of blockchain infrastructure and more specifically Goldman Sachs and the IMF's love affair with digital monetary systems.

Goldman Sachs even referred to the blockchain as "the new technology of trust..."

Clearly, the banking elites are not worried about this technology. In fact, they have been investing in it heavily. But why?

I have long held that current popular cryptocurrencies are nothing more than a beta test for a global digital currency. This is not to say that many people are familiar with using bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. In fact, only a tiny percentage of the population ever comes into contact with or trades crypto. What I am saying is, the terminology, the idea of cryptocurrencies is now widespread.

Thanks to a vast amount of media attention, bitcoin is a household brand even though most people have never owned a bitcoin. Whale investors have hyperinflated the price of bitcoin and certain other coins to levels beyond all reason as demand by the investment world and average people for the mechanism is minimal at best. 
These price explosions, though brief, have spurred public curiosity. And in the minds of many if something is considered valuable, no matter how ethereal or arbitrary the measure, there must be a reason... right? Therefore, high market prices prove by default that bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are necessary and desirable and anyone who is critical or skeptical is merely "upset" that they "missed out on the opportunity."

I have always said when asked about my position on bitcoin and crypto that if you want to try to make money on one of these coins and think you can play the market, then by all means, the more power to you. But for those who thought that bitcoin was a tool for activism and fighting the central banks, all I can say is you have been duped.

Over the course of a decade, the masses have been acclimated to the idea of a digital currency system. They are now being acclimated to the idea that physical currencies should be done away with and replaced with the "more efficient" blockchain tech. Death to the dollar, death to the Fed and death to the globalists! But this is not what is really happening. The death of the dollar and physical cash is only the trigger for a new and even more invasive world order.

In the past two years the agenda for a cashless system and a one world currency has gone mainstream. The plans that liberty analysts were once called "conspiracy theorists" for talking about 10 years ago are now out in the open. The latest barrage of propaganda was launched by the governor of the Bank Of England, Mark Carney, who openly warned of the end of the dollar's world reserve status, comparing it to the end of the Pound Sterling's reserve status after WWII. He also noted that the dollar could be replaced by a new digital currency system and that this would be advantageous the banking system.

This piggybacks on comments made by globalist and PIMCO CEO Mohamed El-Erian in 2017, who stated in an op-ed that the IMF's Special Drawing Rights basket system could be used to replace the dollar as world reserve and that this would help to "fight the rise of populism."

Next, Facebook introduced the concept of the "Libra" digital currency, which Mark Carney also suggested central banks would be watching closely. Libra, in my view, is an attempt to lure wider public into using digital currency on a regular basis. As noted, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies gained exposure but not preference. Where they failed to infiltrate the daily trade of the average citizen, Libra could succeed.

So far, I think the reaction is not what the globalists hoped for. Instead, Facebook is taking it slowly by introducing an internal payment system similar to Paypal. Libra, or something like it, will likely make a reappearance in the next couple of years on Facebook.

Next, former ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet argued in favor of a digital version of the SDR basket system at the Caixin conference in Beijing, arguing that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were not stable enough or "legitimate" enough to take on the role of central bank currencies. Many argue that this is proof that the globalists are afraid of cryptocurrencies. On the contrary, I see this as yet another example of the ongoing fake battle between bankers and crypto. They criticize certain aspects of the technology while at the same time investing in it and promoting it. Like the false left/right paradigm, there is a kind of false central bank/crypto paradigm as well.

Trichet's argument for an IMF dominated crytpocurrency was surely welcomed in Beijing, where the Chinese have long supported the proliferation of the SDR and have called for the SDR to replace the dollar. The Chinese are not the only ones. Russia has all but decoupled from the dollar, dumping its U.S. treasury holding, stockpiling a large supply of gold and removing the dollar in bilateral trade agreements with other nations.

Last year, Europe began establishing a new alternative to the U.S. controlled SWIFT payment system. Germany in particular criticized the U.S. system as a geopolitical weapon. Now, an association of major banks in Germany and in the EU is calling for a digital euro based on the blockchain ledger.

The IMF has been openly publishing white papers that agree with the assessment that a global digital currency is needed, and with former IMF head Christine Lagarde now in charge at the ECB, it is likely that a euro cryptocurrency system will soon make a public appearance.

In the meantime, multiple central banks are pursuing a cashless system and digital currencies of their own. China has announced a national digital currency system will be realized in the next 18 months. The Swiss central bank is exploring digital currency options, and Russia is considering launching a cryptocurrency as well.

The rhetoric coming from the mainstream media and the banking establishment is that physical methods of payment will soon disappear. This is being called the "democratization of money," and the "multipolar world order;" I'm sorry to say that it's the exact opposite.

The claim is that the end of cash and specifically the end of the dollar will result in more choice in the monetary world. But the end of physical cash is actually a removal of choice and result is more centralization. The banking elites are so excited about the digital currency model because it removes all privacy from trade. As I have outlined in past articles, cryptocurrency and blockchain tech have no anonymity whatsoever. It is also clear that central banks intend to introduce their own highly managed currencies and that bitcoin and most other coins will be buried in the process.

The multipolar meme is also a fraud. China, Russia, Europe and other nations are demanding an alternative to the dollar, but if that alternative ends up being a digitized version of the SDR basket under the IMF's control as these countries have suggested, then this means total global centralization, not decentralization.

Real decentralization would mean the removal of bureaucratic oversight and micromanagement. It would mean that physical currencies backed by gold and silver could be offered as an alternative option, not just cryptocurrencies or fiat backed by nothing. After all, gold and silver have far more individual investors worldwide than cryptocurrencies do. How about some real competition instead of price suppression of metals by the likes of JP Morgan?

It would mean localized currencies and payment system, not one worldwide currency and payment system. It would mean nations breaking from dependence not just on the dollar, but also globalist institutions like the IMF, BIS and World Bank. The globalists are attempting to sell us on slavery by packaging it as "free markets." The solution is to not use the systems they promote and be ready to fight tooth and nail for real decentralization when the time comes.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith                                                                                                                              

Win or Lose, This Thanksgiving, WE'RE the Turkeys!

We’re the Turkeys, Not the Farmers

By Bill Bonner, Chairman, Bonner & Partners
Bill Bonner

As our friend Nassim Taleb reminds us, there’s a downside to being a turkey. It’s called Thanksgiving.

Every day for 1,000 days, it gets its food. The turkey gets used to it. It feels pretty good about things. Around the feed trough, it is common knowledge that the food “always” comes. And there is no turkey alive who can contradict it.

The more intellectual turkeys spin out theories to explain their good fortune. One says it’s because of turkey exceptionalism:

“The food always comes because we’re turkeys, not starlings or pigeons. We are special. We don’t have to peck around on the ground trying to find crumbs or scratch in the dirt to find worms. We’re a superior bird; we have access to unlimited food.”
Another has a different hypothesis – better leadership:

“We always get fed because our president has figured out how to make the farmers feed us. He’s the best turkey president ever. If the farmer is a little late, he knows how to make turkey life great again. Didn’t you notice? He takes three steps backward and makes a loud gobbling noise. That usually does it. If it doesn’t, he just keeps gobbling until the food comes. Always works. Always.”

And yet another pipes up:

“Oh, enough with your fancy theories. We always get fed because that’s just the way it is. It’s nature.”

“No, it’s not nature,” offers another. “It’s because the fix is in. The farmer has to feed us, or he’ll be charged with animal abuse. He has to keep the food coming; he has no choice.”

But then, as the fourth Thursday of November approaches, the theories are put to the test. All are proved incorrect.

The food doesn’t come. Instead, the turkeys are ushered into a special part of the farm complex where they’ve never been before. There is something disquieting about it. The turkeys begin to whisper among themselves. One says he hears cries coming from the next room. All of them notice the sounds of machinery… heavy machinery… and a few soft feathers floating through the air.

“What’s going on…?” they wonder, one to another. And then, they begin to panic, running helter-skelter, hoping to escape.

No Exit

Up until that day, the food came every day. Day after day… the sun shined… and along came the farmer with more grain. And then, without warning, everything changed for the turkey. Worse than a bad feather day… it was the final scene. The curtain fell. The court adjourned.

Meanwhile, over in the stock market, the sun still shines. Heck, the more danger signs we see, the more the market goes up. Yesterday was no exception. CNBC:

Stocks rose slightly on Tuesday as retail shares outperformed, lifting the major averages to fresh record highs.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 55.14 points, or 0.2% at 28,121.68. The S&P 500 gained 0.2% to 3,140.50. The Nasdaq Composite also advanced 0.2% to 8,647.93.

But as the SEC is quick to add: Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You may flip a hundred coins and get heads every time. That doesn’t mean that the next one won’t come up tails.

Not All Gravy

We see the turkey’s life from the farmer’s perspective. It is not all gravy and sweet potatoes. But it is very predictable, with a definite beginning and a certain end. And a purpose.

We’re tempted to make an analogy to the stock market. But there is nothing definite about the stock market. It can famously stay irrational a lot longer than you can stay solvent. But it can also stay solvent longer than you can stay irrational.

We assume that as long as the Federal Reserve is adding money to it, it will continue to go up. The total now of its supposedly “not-QE (quantitative easing)” repo market funding is up to more than $300 billion. And it’s no longer just the overnight lending market that the Fed is pumping up. It now funds a 42-day repo facility too.

In other words, with the Fed adding so many fake billions, the turkeys might think higher prices are “rational” and “normal”… and that only rug-chewing doom-and-gloomers would expect it to go down.

And yet… in the stock market, we’re the turkeys, not the farmers. We spin out our own theories. “Stock prices always go up over the long run,” says one simpleton.

“Now, with the enlightened management of the Fed and a very money-savvy president, we’re pretty much assured that nothing will go wrong,” says another.

“Dow 30,000,” adds a third. “The fix is in… They have to keep pumping up the stock market or the whole shebang will fall apart.”

“We’re the U.S.,” opines the president, as if the gods looked with especial favor upon us.

But backstage, Mr. Market is sharpening his blades. He’ll decide for himself when we all get plucked.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.


- Bill Bonner -

Win-Lose Is Making a Dramatic Comeback

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND – In our new book, A Modest Theory of Civilization: Win-Win or Lose, we argue that human history is largely a story of the long march from violence to cooperation. We learned the lesson thousands of years ago. Win-win pays; force does not.

We probably didn’t give the old win-lose enough credit. It never goes away… and as Dan details below, it is now making a dramatic comeback.

This is partly just a normal cyclical change of direction. And it is partly the consequence of deliberately falsifying the money system…

Money Culture

Money is what we use to keep track of where we stand. One owes; the other is owed. One can buy the other’s time; the other must sell his time in order to pay his bills. One is rich; one is poor.

In the natural world, order is established by force. The herbivores eat the plants… and the carnivores eat the herbivores. The lion does not lie down with the lamb; he devours him. And he doesn’t bother himself about whether it is the “right” thing to do. He just does it.

But the agricultural revolution in the Neolithic age brought a new way of surviving and of establishing status. Cultivated plants and domesticated animals left people with food surpluses that could be traded, which created a need for a medium of exchange – money. Instead of killing, enslaving, and stealing, you could simply buy another’s time… or his output.

Since then, a whole money culture has developed with win-win exchanges as its central, guiding principle. Wall Street, with all its debentures, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and butterfly straddles is merely an elaboration of the basic deal.

But the march of win-win progress is neither smooth, nor continuous. Instead, we stumble, trip, and backslide. One generation learns; the next forgets. One saves; the next spends. One increases its wealth; the next goes broke.

Nutcases and Stick-Up Men

Below, Dan shows us how even the richest, most advanced, and most win-win country in history is now backsliding.

Its people still claim to be for free enterprise. They say they respect the Constitution… and, of course, they’re all in favor of honest money and paying for what they get.

But politics is beguiling… the promise of “free money” is fetching… and the ability to bully others is irresistible.

A few years ago, a candidate who proposed to add $97 trillion to America’s debt would have been a joke; now, he’s a vote-getter. And as the financial system becomes more and more complicated, it is easier for the voters to imagine that the money might just grow on trees after all.
As we explored in the Diary this week, even leading economists claim there is a ‘magic money tree’ (aka Modern Monetary Theory) that will allow us to enjoy wealth we never earned.

But the “funny” money is used like a handgun. One group is robbed. Another is rewarded. Status becomes more suspect… Most people still have to earn it. But many get it by colluding with the feds.
Running for president on the democrat side, as Dan surveys the pack, are a bunch of nutcases and stick-up men, candidates who promise to pay for huge new programs with other peoples’ money.

As Dan shows, politics has taken over. It dominates our news cycles. Our attentions. And our economy. It is insidious… and expensive; it shifts energy and resources from creating wealth… to taking it away.

And now, year after year, the U.S. becomes less free market (win-win) and more political (win-lose). And the gods must laugh; the president who has moved the nation furthest towards politics is the one who pledged to take it in the other direction – Donald J. Trump.

Begging the Feds

Alas, once you get going down that road, you tend to pick up speed… as well as a lot of fellow travelers and hangers-on.

The Trump team attacked China, for example. China retaliated, leaving farmers with less income.

Seeking reelection, Team Trump offered to make up some of the lost income with taxpayer money.
The state that gets the most is Iowa, which also happens to be where they hold the early, influential caucuses.

Tariffs on steel, meanwhile, leave steel users feeling like someone has cut in line ahead of them. What can they do but wade into the swamp themselves… hire lobbyists, and beg the feds for an exemption?

By July of this year, reports The Wall Street Journal, 836 U.S. manufacturers had submitted 62,797 requests for exemptions. About half of them were approved.

Then, the steel manufacturers – who had hoped to sell their produce to these manufacturers at higher prices (protected by the tariffs) – filed 22,210 objections. All together, these protests involved 154 million metric tons of steel. But U.S. output is only 87 million.

In other words, the manufacturers must import steel in order to stay in business. The tariffs, along with the associated paperwork, lobbyists, and lawyers, simply add to the price… and slow down the process.

Invitation to Disaster

America learned in the Smoot Hawley fandango of the ‘30s that win-lose tariff wars are easy to lose and almost impossible to win. But everyone who learned that lesson is now in his grave.

We learned in the 18th century… and re-learned countless times since… that fake, “fiat” money, with no fixed backing in gold, was an invitation to a financial disaster.

And we will, no doubt, sooner or later learn, once again, that win-lose doesn’t work very well.
In the meantime, strap on your seatbelts; the ride is going to get a little bumpy. Read on…
Signature Bill Bonner
Chairman, Bonner & Partners

The Inflated States of America: How the triumph of politics over markets will lead to a stock market crash, the destruction of the middle class, and soaring inflation (especially in gold)

By Dan Denning, Coauthor, The Bonner-Denning Letter
In the United States, the future of financial failure is now… It might be unwise to forget the French Revolution. Breaking the social compact between government and its citizens…could cause irreparable damage.
– William Goetzman, Money Changes Everything

It is often forgotten that money creates a unique link between citizens and their government, which holds the exclusive right to print money. The blatant abuse of this powerful right by many governments accompanies the story of many inflations throughout history...
– Bernd Widdig, Culture and Inflation in Weimar Germany

Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II. The risk of catastrophe will be very high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule...
– William Strauss and Neil Howe, The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with History

Something isn’t right.

We’ve known that for a while now. But it’s worth reminding you as markets make new highs. Intervention from the Fed, plus the growth of automation in daily trading has removed price discovery in the markets. For investors and retirees, the danger of a big crash isn’t diminished one iota.

What about politics? Is there a sea change taking place in American society, one that will usher in an era of European-style socialism? An era of bigger deficits, a $40 trillion debt, and a world where you can’t eat meat, can’t drive a car that burns gas, or use a plastic straw?

By the time you read this, it will be around 340 days before the 2020 presidential election. Our long national nightmare will be over, or just beginning, depending on your political point of view. Between now and then, though, you’ll have to suffer through an endless number of debates, primaries, and speculations about what it all means.

We’re going to save you that trouble and tell you exactly what it means this month. But here’s a trigger warning for those of you who take politics seriously: we think it’s a joke. A bad joke.
However politics IS dangerous, mainly because the nation seems to be in the mood for a more powerful and invasive central government. This trend toward a more authoritarian America is bi-partisan. And we believe it’s driven by the huge distortions in the real economy caused by our fake money system. But we’ll get back to that later.

For now, please keep in mind what Bill has written in his new book, Win-Win or Lose, A Modest Theory of Civilization (which you can read here as a Bonner-Denning Letter subscriber). There are only two ways to get what you want in the world: force or persuasion. Markets encourage persuasion through specialization and voluntary and mutually beneficial trade. Politics are all about force (violence).

The triumph of politics in American life is a disaster for markets and liberty. As the journalist H.L. Mencken once wrote, elections are an advance auction of stolen goods. Politics is the essence of win-lose deals. Because government produces nothing, all it can do is take, redistribute, and punish.
There’s a whole lot of stealing and punishing coming up for the American people. And that’s regardless of who wins a year from now. But take a look at this chart…

A lot can change between now and next November. Do you think it’s a coincidence that markets have rallied at the same time Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren appears to have peaked in the tracking polls?

And what will happen now that Nanny State New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg has entered in the race? Will America fall in love with the kind of soft socialism he brought to New York City? Or have we had enough of billionaires from the Big Apple in the Oval Office?
Time will tell. In a moment, we’ll take a look at the main four candidates at the moment: Warren, Vermont grumpy old man socialist Bernie Sanders, creepy Joe Biden, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg from Indiana.

What would each mean for America and the stock market? And what will it mean for you?
Our job at The Bonner-Denning Letter is to “connect the dots,” as Bill would say. That means identifying the big changes coming down the line, revealing how they will affect your wealth and your liberty, and showing you ways to prepare for them.

Our first dot this month is at the Eccles Building in Washington, D.C. – the heart of the Federal Reserve’s operation to destroy price discovery in the stock market and lure investors into a trap…

Another Month, Another High

Another month, another high in the stock markets. The Dow is over 28,000 as I write, and the S&P 500 finally broke 3,000.

The Fed has added at least $300 billion to its balance sheet since the “repo” crisis first began. (We covered the repo crisis in more detail in the September issue.) That balance sheet is now back over $4 trillion.

What happens when you pump in liquidity to financial markets? Prices rise! In response to the spike in overnight lending rates in September, the Fed committed to buying $60 billion worth of T-Bills (short-term government bonds) through the spring of 2020. Since then, it’s conducted over $300 billion worth of repos.

Not coincidentally, both the Dow and the S&P 500 have added on nearly 10% in that time. The Fed clarified its intentions to keep the taps open in a statement released on October 11. Since then, the S&P 500 is up 7% and the Dow 6.5%. But remember, this isn’t quantitative easing (QE) according to the Fed. Why not?

The original QE programs (1, 2, and 3) were designed to keep long-term borrowing costs low. They did this by buying longer-term bonds. That pushed interest rates down (and stocks up). And it also had the added benefit of keeping borrowing costs low for the U.S. government (financial repression), which is now borrowing billions of dollars each week to finance $1 trillion annual deficits.

Which brings us back to the problem in the plumbing of the global financial system that we wrote about in September. The plumbing is broken. It’s why the Fed had to step into the “repo” market to buy U.S. bonds that banks can’t or won’t buy. What’s more, those banks are back in 2008 mode, distrusting one another and hoarding cash. Think I’m exaggerating?

Just before I sent this letter off to the home office, we learned that the Fed offered a 42-day repo facility to banks. That number matters (not because it’s the secret to life, the universe, and everything) but because it’s not the number one. When markets function normally and liquidity and trust are abundant, the “repo” market is an overnight market. It’s a one-day facility.

A 42-day “repo” facility allows financial firms to cash up through the rest of 2019 and to get through the end of the year safely. This ensures there will be no inconvenient financial crisis to discuss over your Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner.

But even extending the facility out to six weeks wasn’t enough for Wall Street. The Fed offered $25 billion in cash for the 42-day facility and received $49 billion worth of bids.

As I say, something isn’t quite right. Whatever’s broken has not been fixed. You know that, and we know that. But the Fed has stabilized the repo market enough to divert investors’ attention to other subjects… like politics.

Which brings us back to the main task of this month’s letter: who will win the Democratic nomination for the presidency? The main four candidates at the moment are: Warren, Vermont grumpy old man socialist Bernie Sanders, creepy Joe Biden, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg from Indiana. What would each mean for America and the stock market?

Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

There’s a lot to dislike about Warren. Let’s start with her tax plan. She wants to tax wealth rather than income or capital gains. That itself reveals the greedy and covetous nature of most big government spenders (Democrats AND Republicans). But she’s slippery too. How?

When Warren first unveiled her “wealth tax” it was as follows: 2% on net worth between $50 million and $1 billion and 3% on net worth above $1 billion. Later, she upped the top wealth rate to 6%. If you’re reading this and you’re not a billionaire (or even a millionaire) you may think it doesn’t matter it to you. You’re wrong (I’m sorry to be so blunt but I’ll explain why).

By raising the top rate to six percent she proved an important point: once you establish the principle that it’s okay to tax a person’s net worth, lowering the threshold where it kicks in is just a matter of time.

The tax may not apply to you now. But when the federal government has a $40 trillion debt and entitlement spending soars, and the Feds get desperate, it would be easy enough to apply the wealth tax to anyone who has “too much money.” Remember, the income tax was designed to be temporary.

These taxes are nearly impossible to kill once they put roots down under your skin.

Warren has a host of other policies that are anathema to anyone who favors limited government, low taxes, the rule of law, and sound money. But then, she recently unveiled a proposal to fundamentally transform our government.” The proposal was specifically about corruption at the federal level. But it also captures the essential nature of Warren.

On the outside she looks and sounds like a “do-gooder.” But the intellectual heart of her argument about how government should work is based on win-lose. They win. You lose. Join “them” – especially in how you think – or be a loser.

It’s fruitless to predict how the country would change or where the stock market would go with Warren in charge. Higher taxes would lead to lower growth – but growth is low already (lower than Trump predicted when he ran for office). And if the corporate tax is raised, you’d expect lower earnings on Wall Street, too. Bigger government is bearish for markets.

But if there’s one point you can take away from this month’s letter it’s that it doesn’t really matter who wins next year. Whoever sits in the Oval Office is going to preside over a country in deep trouble. A country where the Deep State really runs things (and tries to bring you down with a coup or impeachment if you don’t tow the line). A country where voters want more handouts and wars, not less.

In that situation, it doesn’t really matter who the president is. The dollar will eventually lose its status as the global reserve currency. All paper money around the world will devalue relative to real money (gold and silver). And the tremendous debt that’s kept markets afloat since 2008 will sink them like a stone. Financial markets will deflate and in response, fiscal and monetary police will unleash a holy hell of inflation.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Last month I mentioned “the Overton window.” It’s a political theory about how once unthinkable and radical ideas become public policy. You have to get an idea into the public’s imagination first. You “normalize” it through debate and research issued by think-tanks. And eventually, some version of the idea becomes public policy.

Bernie Sanders has shifted the entire Democratic party to the far left with his socialist vision of the United States. By his own admission (and fuzzy math) his spending plans would add $97 trillion to the federal debt over the next 10 years. Medicare for All alone would add $30 to $40 trillion. But he wouldn’t stop there.

Sanders wants to spend $16.3 trillion in the war on climate change (the sun must be stopped!). His mandatory nationwide $15 minimum wage would cost $15 trillion and have nearly half of all employed Americans working for Uncle Sam (the ultimate in dependency). He’d spend $3 trillion forgiving student loan debt (sure to be popular with college kids who have paid inflated tuition prices to learn nothing, or worse, come out of four years of studying knowing nothing about the real world and LESS than they started with). He also has several trillions for infrastructure and low-cost housing.

The national debt is now $23 trillion – Sanders would more than triple it
It’s all a pipe dream worthy of a world-class opium eater. If you’re going to dream, dream big. And if money is no object, why not? In a Sanders presidency, total government spending in America (federal, state, and local) would be 70% of GDP. That’s before such policies would crash GDP, of course. But even in European-style socialism – as measured by the international think tank OECD – the average size of government spending is 43% of GDP. Sanders would nearly double that.

This kind of blow-out in spending, with annual deficits equal to 30% of GDP, is only possible by “normalizing” something like Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). In theory, there’s no limit to the amount of government bonds the Federal Reserve can buy. Crank up the presses and finance the deficits!
But to get the kind of America Sanders wants, you have to fundamentally transform the monetary system. You have to give the man credit. By suggesting things no one in America has seriously thought about doing, he’s encouraged a lot of very stupid people to take those ideas seriously. That’s how the Overton window works.
America is not ready to jump off the socialist cliff yet, we think. But some version of Sanders-lite may be what the Democrats eventually offer up on their platform. If Sanders manages to do well in Iowa and win New Hampshire early next year, markets will certainly “feel the Bern.”

Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN)

This is a name (pronounced Boot-edge-edge) I didn’t expect to be writing about, mostly because the fresh-faced former solider and Mayor of South Bend, Indiana is just 37 years old barely old enough to run, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. But that may be part of his appeal: he’s not an old Washington retread (Biden is 77, Sanders 78, Warren 70 and Trump 73).
By the way, this is not an “ageist” argument. With age comes experience, even if that experience is a legacy of fiscal failure and warmongering. And also, career Washington politicians who’ve been in the Swamp for one decade (Warren), two (Sanders), or even four (Biden) are hypocrites for blaming the current president for the country’s woes. Donald Trump didn’t spend the last 40 years in Washington running huge deficits and starting wars. He was in New York building skyscrapers and going bankrupt. Sad!

But back to Buttigieg. Like Warren, he’s also slippery. He’s a self-professed Christian, which I didn’t think was allowed in the Democratic party anymore. But he supports abortion and he’s gay. This may be just the right mix of social liberalism and conservatism to appeal to “centrists” and “independents” who think Warren and Sanders are too radical.

Fiscally, Mayor Pete is anything but conservative. He’s proposed raising the top income tax rate to 49.9% (because 50 is nearly half)! He wants to end new oil and gas drilling on all federal lands. And he’d also abolish the Electoral College. (He hasn’t said how, however. And, not surprisingly, the Constitution does not allow the executive branch to unilaterally change a provision which determines how the president is elected.)

Buttigieg’s rise in the polls is the Overton window in action. Sanders and Biden dominated the early stages of the campaign with their wacky ideas about fundamentally transforming America. By comparison, Mayor Pete sounds sensible. If he wins in Iowa he may at least knock candidates like Corey Booker and Kamala Harris out of the race. But if young former Navy man and Catholic John F. Kennedy had trouble with voters south of the Mason Dixon line, so will Mayor Pete.

Joe Biden (D-DE)

Why do we still call Joe Biden the vice president? Why do any former presidents and vice presidents get called that after they’ve left office? One of the greatest things President Trump has done for the country is reduce the public’s respect for elected officials. He’s done it mostly by example. But it’s a real accomplishment.

In a perfect world, Vice President Biden would just be “Creepy Uncle Joe” – a moniker he’s earned for his weird penchant of touching women in photo ops. But I digress. Back to politics.

There’s no doubting Biden’s Deep State credentials. He was elected to the United States Senate at the tender age of 31 in 1973. He’s been a committed Swamp Creature ever since, chairing the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees in the Senate and, of course, serving as wingman to Barrack Obama for eight years as vice president.

If you were to pick a poster-boy for all that is wrong with careerist Washington insider types, it would be Biden. With his fake teeth and botoxed forehead, he’s primed and ready for at least another four years besmirching the national stage. (Yes, it’s mean-spirited, but none of these people deserve our respect or admiration.)

Still, despite all his obvious flaws (cosmetic AND substantial), what Biden has going for him is that he’s not Sanders, Warren, or Trump. To the extent that mainstream baby boomers determine the outcome of this election, they might be the most comfortable voting for Biden. He’s a known and relatively likeable commodity, if buffoonish and increasingly inept on stage. If he can survive the primaries (literally and in terms of performance), he’s got a chance.

Like the rest, though, Biden would be captain of a sinking ship. He’d probably relish the chance to announce that America was reneging on debt owed to foreigners (take that, China!). And he may be exactly the man the country needs to do the inane things demanded by the people at this stage in our history. Cometh the moment, cometh the man.

The Most Significant Election in American History?

If you’re a Republican or a Democrat, it’s likely I’ve offended you with my comments above. Good! Don’t get caught picking sides and looking for a political solution to America’s problems. Politics IS the problem.

It’s not noble or patriotic to “get behind” a lying psychopath and put him/her in charge of the country’s nuclear codes. No one is on your side but you. And the only way to “save” the country is to start by saving yourself, your family, and your wealth.

When has a politician NOT said that this is the most important election of your lifetime? They say it every four years. Because when the government gets bigger and we get more wars and spending, politics becomes more deeply entrenched in our private lives.

I want to live in America where elections don’t matter and no one is asking for “unity.” And in an America that doesn’t spend $6.4 trillion on endless foreign wars. (You can see the $6.4 trillion breakdown for yourself in the nearby table.)

Summary of War-Related Spending, Fiscal Year 2001-2020 (Rounded to the nearest $billion)
Billions of Current Dollars
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Appropriations  
     Department of Defense 1,959
     State Department/USAID 131
Estimated Interest on Borrowing for DOD and State Dept OCO Spending 925
War-related Spending in the DOD Base Budget
     Estimated Increass to DOD Base Budget Due to Pos-9-11 Wars      803 
     "OCO for Base" a new category of spending in FY2019 and FY2020 100
Medical and Disability Care for Post-9/11 Veterans   437
Homeland Security Spending for Prevention and Response to Terrorism 1,054
Total War Appropriations and War-Related Spending through FY 2020 $5,409
Estimated Future Obligations for Veterans Medical and Disability FY2020-FY2059 >1,000
Total War-Related Spending through FY202 and Obligations for Veterans $6,409
Source: The Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
All that said, there is, indeed, a transition in the balance of power in American politics. It is tempting to see that change as purely generational. (You can see the generational breakdown in the below graphic, “American Voters by Age Group.”)

As the boomers age and retire, the millennials rise, take control of Congress, and “fundamentally transform” the country into a socialist shithole full of fake meat, fake cars (Tesla’s Cybertruck), and fake money.
But I would suggest that something larger and more historical is at work. Boomers, Gen Xers, and millennials don’t have different DNA. They don’t have different political values purely based on their ages.

As always, it comes down to their relationship with money and the impact the money system has on the economy and society. Let’s take a closer look at that relationship.

The Financial Crisis Before the Political Revolution

You could argue that the financial crisis of 2008 has never really gone away. In fact, the response by Washington and Wall Street to the crisis – to bail out bankers with taxpayer money and then rig the stock market – is what threw the Overton window wide open for socialism in America. I’ll say more about what that means for the future of the country in a moment.

But what happens next? And what should you do with your money in 2020? What will the changing generational composition of Congress mean for the stock market and your retirement?

These are all questions we’re going to have to follow in the coming months. You already know our “big-picture” analysis. We believe the stock market will eventually revert to the mean. Whether that’s a fast crash or a slow-motion one, we don’t know.

We believe you’ll see deflation in financial assets and that in response to huge government deficits, you’ll see massive money-printing by the Fed and/or MMT from a radical Congress that unleashes inflation in consumer prices and real assets. All of this should be good for gold.

Next month, we’ll reveal our “10 Predictions for the Next 10 Years.” And along with it, “10 Things to Do Before the Bubble Pops” (these are things you won’t be able to do anymore in America once the money system has changed – such as places you should visit or experiences you should have).
Of course, it’s foolish to predict anything. Much less 10 years out. But in our ongoing effort to connect the dots and stay one step ahead, we have to try! Here’s a sneak peek with three of our predictions now:
  1. Boomers and millennials make common cause in Congress. Defying predictions of generational warfare (at least for now), the 117th Congress unites to embark on massive federal deficits to fund infrastructure spending, student debt forgiveness, and some version of Medicare for All.

    This new spending is “paid for” with a rash of new taxes including: a higher payroll tax, a federal value-added tax (VAT), wealth taxes, a financial transactions tax, and other forms of financial repression that target asset owners, retirees, and what’s left of the middle class.

  2. MMT goes mainstream. MMT is, in fact, a form of fiscal policy. It means control over the nation’s money – including the creation of it – shifts from the Fed and commercial banks to Congress and the Treasury (the executive branch).

    The Fed will expand its balance sheet (crank up the printing press, in other words) as much as necessary to finance U.S. deficits in 2020. But in the long term, for the nation to pay for the kinds of things Republicans and Democrats want, you’re going to have to change the money system. MMT does that.

  3. Texas goes blue. There are 538 votes in the electoral college. You need 270 of them to become president. Did you know you can secure 171 votes (or 63% of the required total) by winning just five states? California has 55 votes, Texas 38, New York and Florida 29, and Pennsylvania 20. Win those fives states, and all you have to do is find 99 votes in the remaining 45 states.

    Even with former Texas congressman Robert (“Beto”) O’Rourke out of the race, we predict Texas – on the strength of urban, minority, and youth votes, plus normal corruption and vote-rigging – goes blue in 2020.

That third point brings us back to what’s at stake in the 2020 elections. Trump – assuming he neither resigns nor is impeached – could still win even if he loses Texas. But he’d have to win every state he won in 2016 (holding Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio especially) AND then flip enough states to get back those 38 votes. It seems unlikely. But then, so did his entire candidacy and eventual victory in 2016.

Before then, we have the Iowa caucuses on February 3, New Hampshire on February 11, Nevada on February 22, South Carolina on February 29, and then “Super Tuesday” on March 3, where voters go to the polls in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.

By then, you’ll have a pretty good idea of who the Democratic nominee is and who their pick is for vice president. If the greatest stock market in American history has crashed (or begun correcting) by then, it will make the general election even more interesting. Trump is certain to produce great theater in the presidential debates.

But in the big picture, we don’t think anyone can alter the trajectory of the country politically and economically. We’re too far down the rabbit hole. The people have learned how to vote themselves politicians who have found new ways to spend money.

Take the recent debate about the Electoral College, for example. Many of the Democrats have called for it to be abolished. The fact that someone (a loser like Hillary Clinton) can win the popular vote nationwide but lose in the Electoral College seems unfair and undemocratic.

Well, yes. That’s exactly the point. If you read Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton argues precisely against the popular election of the president. The founders knew the public couldn’t be trusted, or could be easily manipulated by a lying, deceptive press. That’s why they made the election of the president and, at the time, senators, dependent on smaller groups of representatives who would be better informed and exercise better judgement than the public.

You can argue about whether the members of the Electoral College are better informed. They probably aren’t. But that is beyond the scope of this month’s newsletter.

Politicians are talking about getting rid of the Electoral College right now because it’s an obstacle to more control and centralization of power and money in Washington. If they can just shut up the over represented rubes in “flyover country,” they can get on with the project of turning America into a European country, or in Sanders’ case, the USSA.

No matter who wins, how they win, or what they promise to do, we believe that expansion of U.S. debt and deficits (by QE or MMT) is bearish for stocks, government bonds, and ultimately the U.S. dollar. Fed balance sheet expansion may be pumping up markets now. But while gold is resting below $1,500 an ounce, now would be a good time to add more.

The Godless Times of Inflation

But what if we’re wrong? What about Japan? It’s had low nominal GDP growth and inflation for years now, despite low (and negative) interest rates and huge government deficits. Why are we so confident inflation will show up in the U.S. when it hasn’t (infamously) in Japan? The quality of life in Japan – low crime, clean streets, respectful people – seems very high.

And while we’re at it, let’s be consistent and remember history. Predicting inflation now goes against the 800 years of lower real interest rates I wrote about in August. In fact, despite a notable episode in the former Habsburg Empire (which included Germany, Austria, and Hungary), the historical trend has been toward lower rates. The episode in the 1970s in the U.S. – where we had low growth AND inflation – was the other exception.

But it’s what the two exceptions had in common that makes them relevant right now. I hope you’ll bear with me here, because it’s probably the key point Bill and I write about it. It explains why we’re so worried about inflation. (And, if you read Tom Dyson’s Postcards From the Fringe e-letter, you know Tom is also worried about it.) It gets to the heart of our understanding of how money influences values, culture, the economy, and politics. Money changes everything!
The two exceptions to the historical trend of lower interest rates were both fundamental monetary regime changes:

The first – the blowup of the multilingual, multiethnic Habsburg Empire – was directly linked to Germany’s defeat in World War One. In that case, the resulting inflation created the political conditions for the rise of Nazism.

The second – the de-linking of the dollar to gold in 1971 – kicked off the inflation of the 1970s and the rise of oil and gold (most real assets rising in dollar terms). But it was more than just an inflationary episode. It was the culmination of years of debasement of the currency.

The creation of the Fed in 1913, Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102 in 1933 (which outlawed the ownership of gold by American citizens), and then Nixon’s 1971 closing of the gold window… these were all deliberate attacks on sound money in America. To what end?

To break the link between sound money and small government. To attack individual liberty and promote centralization and state control. To replace the checks and balances of the Constitution with a Deep State committed to warfare abroad and political and financial repression at home. And where are we now?

We are on the verge of a regime change in the global order. Financially, asset inflation will turn into asset deflation. Consumer price inflation will come roaring back with massive government deficits. The social and political stability created by that inflation – which has in fact been brewing since asset prices began inflating in 2008 – will “fundamentally transform” America as you know it.
Don’t take my word for it. Here is none other than John Maynard Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Keynes was writing after the war and between monetary regimes. He understood well the consequences of distorting the value of money. He wrote (emphasis added is mine):

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become “profiteers,” who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, we believe we HAVE diagnosed the existence of deadly inflation in the United States. If you have as well, you are that one man in a million.

The trick Wall Street pulled off in 2008 was making the confiscation and transfer of wealth from the public to the insiders nonarbitrary. Instead of accidentally blowing a bubble in tech stocks (2000) or in the housing market (2007), they made sure they knew where the money was going this time so they could get there first. They changed the laws, monkeyed with the money and tax code, and engineered an inflation in the place where most of the public would notice it but not benefit from it: the stock market.

But in so doing, they’ve unleashed disastrous consequences. First, their distortions in the market mean that prices no longer communicate accurate information. This has given investors a false sense of security about the stock market and future expected returns. Because the computers are doing all the thinking and buying on Wall Street, the vast majority of the investing public is blind to the risk of both a ‘flash crash’ (or ‘flash depression’) or ten years of flat returns in the stock market.

The second consequence is even more damaging. And it’s why we focus on inflation so much. By breaking the money system and rigging it to work for an elite group of thieves and con artists, they’ve broken the relationships between citizens and government. This is why people now openly talk about another Civil War in America.

The even bigger danger is that the entire country will slide into the open arms of an authoritarian ruler who promises revenge against those responsible for gutting the middle class and destroying the American dream. (I’m assuming that’s not what already happened in 2016, but it may have.)

Next to language, money is the most important medium of communication in modern society. When you get deliberate dilution and debasement in the value of legal tender money, you eventually get social disorder, rebellion, or even revolution. When you worship money for its own sake, you get godless inflation.

The more degraded the money gets, the more degraded the people feel. And the more degraded they feel, the more degraded they’ll behave. This explains the rising use (and tolerance) of drugs and alcohol in America. It’s a way to medicate the depression that has set in from living in a world in which there are two sets of rules: one for the very rich and powerful and one for the rest of us.

The common belief is that the Weimar inflation planted the psychic seeds for the rise of the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. In America today, the financial asset inflation since 2008 has planted those seeds. When asset prices crash and consumer prices soar, those seeds will bloom and it will be a bitter fruit indeed.

Dan Denning
Coauthor, The Bonner-Denning Letter

P.S. The goal of this month’s letter was not to depress you right before your Thanksgiving dinner with family. In fact, let me take a moment to thank YOU for your support of the work Bill and I do in the letter each month and to wish you and your family a happy Thanksgiving.

Our goal here at the letter is to help you improve your quality of life by giving you better information and analysis about what’s really going on in America and the world. (Tom Dyson will be bringing you his own take on that next year, once he settles down from his 18-month trip around the world.) We can’t cook you a turkey. But we might be able to help you avoid a big financial loss.

But to do that means that sometimes we have to tell hard truths. Or at least try to. This was one of those months where the truth about the utter avarice and greed that dominate American politics needed to be repeated. Politics will not solve the problems you face in the coming years. We believe your best defense against them is financial independence.

And you can only acquire or keep your financial independence if you’re armed with the right information at the right time. That independence will give you the freedom and mobility to protect yourself and your family no matter who wins the White House in 2020 or what policies they pursue. If you want to save the country or your family, you need to save yourself first.

P.P.S. We tried to be as bipartisan in our contempt of the political establishment as possible this month. Luckily, they helped us out. Just a few days ago, the Senate passed a bill funding the government through December 20. It was yet another “temporary” spending bill that makes the deficit and debt larger, and kicks the can down the road for future generations (your grandchildren) to deal with. But it gets worse!

Buried in the spending bill was a reauthorization of the Patriot Act for three months, including a key provision which allows for the mass surveillance of Americans’ phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA). Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which permits that bulk collection, was set to expire on December 15. The House approved the bill by a vote of 231-192. The Senate vote went 74-20.
There you have it in a nutshell. A complete abdication of fiscal responsibility by both parties. And buried in a spending bill is the bipartisan approval of a program of mass surveillance on Americans by an unaccountable spy agency. If you think there’s a politician who can sit in the Oval Office and challenge the status quo, then you live in a state where smoking pot is legal. Or you’re breaking the law.

P.P.P.S. Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the NSA’s attack on civil liberties when he blew the whistle on them in 2013. Unlike whoever the whistleblower is regarding Trump’s call with Ukraine’s President, Snowden has been deemed a traitor to his country for exposing an illegal program of mass surveillance.

He ought to be celebrated as an American hero. And if you’re looking for Christmas gifts, I strongly recommend his book Permanent Record. In it, he wrote the following:

The freedom of a country can only be measured by its respect for the rights of its citizens, and it's my conviction that these rights are in fact limitations of state power that define exactly where and when a government may not infringe into that domain of personal and individual freedoms that during the American Revolution was called ‘liberty’ and during the Internet Revolution is called ‘privacy.’

Your liberty and your privacy are under attack in today’s America, by both parties and a vastly entrenched public service we call the Deep State.

Protecting your wealth and your freedom from these threats is our goal in 2020 and beyond. Next month, I’ll have more to say about how you can avoid mass surveillance (both digital and physical), and how it could be coupled with digital money and financial repression to control your life, plus what you have to do now to stay free.


InvestmentOpen DateOpen PriceRecent PriceDividendsReturnsStop LossNotes
Drive Shack (DS)01/24/17$3.77$3.93$0.004.2%$2.63 (H)Buy up to $6
Franklin Financial Network (FSB)09/11/17$32.70$34.18$0.185.1%$26.16 (H)Buy up to $35
Navigator Holdings (NVGS)06/20/18$11.15$12.06$0.008.2%$7.80 (H)Buy up to $13
B. Riley Financial (RILY)12/12/18$20.10$29.10$1.4952.2%$12.06 (H)Buy up to $21
(T) = Trailing Stop
(H) = Hard Stop